LC' 


C 


LIBRARY 


PRIliCETOlV.  iV.  J. 

DOXATIDN    OF 

S  A  M  I    K  I.    A  a  N  W  W  , 


Letter 


J^^       /si^^-  -^■'^y^^^^^ 


V. 


m 


THE  PRINCIPAL 


DOCTRINES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


DEFENDED  AGAINST    THE 


ERRORS  OF  SOCINIANISM 


AN  ANSWER 


THE  REV.  JOHN  GRUNDY'S  LECTURES, 


BY    EDWARD    HARE. 


NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED  BY  T.  MASON  AND  G.  LANE, 

FOR  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  AT  THE  CONFERENCE 
OFFICE,  200  MULBERRV-STREET. 

J.  Collord,  Printer. 
1837. 


CONTENTS 


Preface Page      5-8 

CHAPTER  I. 

Ofthe  Impossibility  of  attaining  to  the  Knowledge 
of  Divine  Things  by  Reason  without  Revela- 
tion  9-22 

CHAPTER  H. 

Of  the  Impropriety  of  making  human  Reason  the 

Test  of  the  Doctrines  of  Divine  Revelation      23-36 

CHAPTER  III. 

Of  the  Existence  of  the  Devil  .  .        .       37-58 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Of  the  Unity  of  God 59-61 

CHAPTER  V. 

Of  the  Pre-existence  and  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ       62-93 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Of  the  Personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy 

Spirit  .  ....  94-112 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Of  the  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity         .     113-122 

CHAPTER  Vm. 

Of  the  Origin  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity    .    123-154 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Of  the  Scriptural  Use  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 

Trinity  ,  :         .         .  .         .     155-160 


4  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  X. 

Of  the  Propitiatory  Sacrifice  of  the  Death  of 

Jesus  Christ 161-196 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Of  the  Eternity  of  the  Future  Punishment  of  the 
Wicked       "...  .         .      197-237 

CHAPTER  XH. 

Of  the  Divine  Inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Writings  238-263 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Of  the  Fallen  State  of  Mankind  .         ..      264-306 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Of  the  Miraculous  Conception  of  Jesus  Christ     307-341 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Of  the  Ordinary  Influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit       342-379 
The  Conclusion 380-390 


PREFACE 


In  a  prefatory  address,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  the 
author  to  assign  reasons  for  his  undertaking,  to  ad- 
vertise the  substance  of  his  work,  to  obviate  vulgar 
prejudices,  and  to  apologize  for  his  defect  in  the 
execution  of  his  design,  or  conciliate  the  candour  of 
the  public.  Bat  when,  as  in  the  present  instance,  a 
book  has  been  published  in  periodical  parts,  and  the 
principal  parts  have  been  sometime  in  the  hands  of 
the  purchasers  before  the  preface  is  actually  written, 
such  an  address  would  be  merely  formal. 

It  is  already  known  that  the  Lectures  recently 
delivered  and  published  by  the  Rev.  John  Grundy, 
comprise,  with  some  original  matter,  the  arguments 
and  objections  commonly  urged  by  the  Socinians 
against  what  he  justly,  but  inconsistently,  calls  "  the 
principal  doctrines  of  Christianity :"  and  that  this 
work  was  originally  intended  to  be  a  preservative 
against  the  errors  which  he  has  zealously  and  indus- 
triously laboured  to  disseminate.  The  manner  in 
which  this  defence  is  conducted  is  now  before  the 
religious  public,  who  have  rendered  all  apologies  un. 
necessary  by  exercising  that  candour  to  which  the 
author  wished  to  appeal,  and  which  he  now  feels  it 
his  duty  gratefully  to  acknowledge. 

This  acknowledgment  is  not,  however,  intended  to 
be  made  to  those  who  have  adopted  Mr.  G.'s  creed, 
without  imitating  his  candour  :  some  of  whom  will 
probably  confess  that  it  would  not  be  very  appro- 


6 


PREFACE. 


priate.  "Liberality  of  sentiment"  is  sometimes  only 
another  name  for  bigotry :  and  "  calm  inquiry"  is 
often  confined  to  one  side  of  a  question.  The  author 
does  not  need  to  be  informed  that  many  of  them  re- 
gard his  opposition  to  their  prejudices  as  a  sufficient 
proof  of  his  "  illiberality ;"  that  others  of  them  con- 
demn him  without  a  hearing,  because  he  has  at- 
tempted to  vindicate  what  they  "  never  will  believe  ;"' 
that  some  of  them  lay  aside  the  preservative,  after 
five  minutes'  examination,  because  "  he  sets  out  on 
principles  very  different  from  theirs ;"  or  that  they 
knew  beforehand,  from  his  denomination,  that  "  he 
is  one  of  those  fanatics."  As  these  are  not  the  men 
who  are  "  willing  to  become  fools,  that  they  may  be 
made  wise,"  he  confesses  that  to  them  he  has  no 
apology  to  offer.  He  can  only  pray  that  '•  God,  who 
commanded  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  may  shine 
in  their  hearts  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ." 

There  is  one  subject  on  which  he  thinks  it  provi- 
dential that  he  has  this  opportunity  for  explaining  him- 
self. According  to  credible  report,  at  a  provincial 
meeting  of  Unitarian  ministers,  recently  held  at  Mon- 
ton  Green,  in  the  vicinity  of  Manchester,  Mr.  G.  was 
pleased  to  announce  that  "  his  main  arguments  are 
left  untouched."  The  arguments  which  he  has  ad- 
duced in  his  Lectures,  may  be  separated  into  two 
classes.  Many  of  them  bear  upon  the  statements 
here  intended  to  be  vindicated.  To  these,  it  is  hoped, 
the  reader  will  find,  in  the  work  before  him,  a  direct 
answer.  But  others  of  them  are  levelled  against 
such  statements  of  the  doctrines  in  question  as  the 
author  did  not  feel  himself  under  any  obligation 


PREFACE. 


7 


to  defend.    These  a^e  probably  what  Mr.  G.  calls  his 
"  main  arguments."    Every  man,  who  is  not  a  volun- 
teer in  faith,   entertains   his   own   opinion  on  the 
scriptural  truths  which  he  holds  in  comm(!ni  with 
his  brethren :   and   while  he  modestly  declines  to 
dictate  to  others,  he  may  reasonably  be  allowed  to 
vindicate  the  general  doctrines  according  to  his  own 
modification  of  them,  without  being  made  respon- 
sible for  the  precision  of  those  statements  from  which 
his  opponent  imagines  himself  to  derive  considerable 
advantage.     To  answer  directly  this  class  of  Mr^ 
G.'s  arguments,  would  be  to  vindicate  those  human 
systems  which  he  has  selected  as  the  most  vulner- 
able, instead  of  that  Divine  system  of  "  truth  which 
abideth  for  ever."     The  only  legitimate  method  in 
the  present  case,  therefore,  was  to  state  the  doctrines 
under  discussion  in  what  the  author  thought  the 
most  scriptural  manner,    and  to   support  his  own 
statement.     If  by  such  a  statement   his  opponent's 
objections   be   fairly   obviated  or   evaded,  they  are 
answered  effectually  though  not  formally ;  for  the 
light  of  truth  alone  is  sufficient  to  dispel  the  shades 
of  error.     In  this   way  Mr.  G.'s  main  arguments 
are  really  touched  ;  and  some  people  think  that  the 
touch  is  like  that  of  Ithuriel's  spear. 

E.  a 

Manchester,  April  29,  1814. 


CHRISTIANITY    DEFENDED. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Of  the  Impossibility  of  attaining   to  the   Knowledge   of 
Divine  Things  by  Reason  without  Revelation. 

It  is  one  of  the  disadvantages  to  be  encountered  in  the 
present  discussion,  that  while  the  evangeUcal  party  take 
only  the  Scriptures  for  their  guide,  the  Socinians  claim  it 
as  a  privilege  to  appeal  from  the  sacred  writers  to  the  dic- 
tates of  unassisted  reason.  The  latter  will  submit  their 
opinions  to  the  test  of  Scripture,  only  when  the  Scrip- 
tures will  stand  the  ordeal  of  their  opinions.  Or,  to  speak 
with  greater  propriety,  they  choose  to  try  rather  the  Scrip- 
tures by  their  creed,  than  their  creed  by  the  Scriptures. 
When  the  language  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles  appears 
to  favour  their  hypothesis,  they  are  prepared  to  make  the 
utmost  use  of  its  authority ;  but  when  the  contrary  is  the 
case,  and  the  plainest  declarations  of  the  sacred  writers 
can  by  no  "  cogging  of  the  dice,"  be  transformed  into  me- 
taphor, allegory,  or  figurative  representation ;  when  the 
primitive  teachers  of  Christian  truth  obstinately  refuse  to 
become  Socinians,  or  even  to  be  neutral,  our  opponents 
are  prepared  to  pronounce  against  them  a  sentence  of 
excommunication,  and  to  erase  their  testimony  from  the 
record,  as  an  interpolation,  a  corruption  of  the  sacred  text, 
or  an  inconclusive  argument. 

On  this  important  subject  Mr.  G.  has  fully  delivered 
himself.  His  language  is  as  follows  :  "  Grant  only  (what 
none  I  imagine  will  deny)  that  the  bestowment  of  reason 
upon  man  was,  in  itself,  a  partial  revelation  of  the  nature, 
attributes,  and  will  of  God,  and  then  say  whether  it  be 
possible  that  a  subsequent,  more  complete  revelation 
should ^ontradict  the  first."  (Se7-mon  on  Christianity  an 
Intellectual  and  Individual  Religion. ) 


10  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OF    DIVINE    THINGS 

The  advocates  of  the  infallibility  of  human  reason  in 
things  Divine,  would  do  well  to  acquaint  themselves  more 
exactly  with  the   power  and   the  province  of  the  faculty 
which  they  so  unreasonably  exalt.    The  doctrine  of  innate 
ideas    has    been  long    and  justly  exploded.     But   if  the 
mind  (or  reason)  of  man  possesses  no  innate  ideas,  from 
whence  does  it  collect  the  first  principles  of  knowledge  ? 
From  sensation,  experience,  and  instruction.     Infants  ob- 
tain their  first  and  imperfect  ideas  from  what  they  perceive 
by  their  external  senses.  These  first  ideas  are  rectified  by 
experience.     Having  in   this  way  received  a  variety  of 
ideas,  and  having  learned  to  distinguish  the  different  sounds 
which  they  hear,  they  are  next  taught  to  imitate  those 
sounds,  and  to  make  each  of  them  the  sign  of  a  distinct 
idea.     They  are   thus  prepared  for  farther  instruction ; 
and  by  instruction  they  obtain  all  their  additional  know, 
ledge.     They  are   instructed  in   the  knowledge  of  first 
principles.     They  are  taugiit  even  the  use    of  reason ; 
and  by  instruction  are  led  on  to  those  farther  degrees  of 
knowledge  which    are    acquired   by    rational  deduction. 
Why  do  we  appoint   instructers  to   our  children,  if  they 
have  the  rudiments  of  all  needful  knowledge  within  them- 
selves?    The  universal  practice  of  mankind,  founded  on 
universal   experience,   yea,   even  the  practice  and  expe- 
rience of  Mr.  G.,  who,  in   his   way,  is  taking  so  much 
pains  to  instruct  and  to  guide  our  reason,  amounts  to  a  de- 
monstration of  what  is  here  asserted.     The  personal  expe- 
rience of  every  man  speaks  the  same  language.    Let  any 
one  make  the  experiment,  whether  he  can,  by  the  utmost 
exertion  of  his  reason,  create  one  new  idea  in  addition  to 
those  which  he  has  received  by  sensation  and  instruction. 
Every  man  may  be  conscious  that  he   at   first  relied  on 
the  testimony  of  others,  and  was  tlien  taught  to  reason  on 
those  principles  which  he  had  thus  imbibed.     The  eye  of 
reason,  like  the  eye  of  the  body,  is  by  its  Maker  formed 
capable  of  perceiving  and  distinguishing  the  objects  which 
are  suited  to  its  nature,  when  tliey  are  laid  betbre  it  in  a 
proper  light.     But   until  tliose  objects  are  so  proposed  to 
it,  it  can  no  more  perceive  or  distinguish  them  than  the 
bodily  eye  can  see  what  is  not  jxresented  to  it,  or  which  is 
the  same  thing,  what  is  presented  in  midnight  darkness. 
As  the  mind  cannot  reason  without  ideas,  it  has  no  more 


NOT  ATTAINABLE  BY  REASON.  11 

power  to  create  them*than  to  create  an  atom.  Man  is  a 
dependent  being.  God  only  is  his  own  instructer,  (if  there 
be  no  impropriety  in  applying  that  expression  to  the  eter- 
nal mind,)  and  he  only  has  the  ideas  and  archetypes  of  all 
things  in  himself. 

The  vanity  of  all  the  inquiries  of  mankind  after  wisdom, 
Divine  wisdom,  and  spiritual  understanding,  until  God  is 
pleased  to  reveal  it,  is  finely  exemplified  in  Job  xxviii. 
Exactly  similar  to  the  doctrine  of  that  beautiful  chapter 
is  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  They  declare 
that,  as  to  the  things  of  God,  mankind  are  in  a  state  of 
entire  ignorance  until  they  are  taught  by  Divine  revelation  ; 
and  always  impute  the  knowledge  which  mankind  receive 
to  instruction  from  above.  Take  the  following  passages 
as  a  sufficient  specimen  : — "  Every  man  is  brutish  in  his 
knowledge,"  Jer.  x,  14.  "  He  that  teacheth  man  know, 
ledge.  The  Lord  knoweth  the  thoughts  of  man,  that  they 
are  vanity.  Blessed  is  the  man  whom  thou  chastenest, 
O  Lord,  and  teachest  him  out  of  thy  law,"  Psalm  xciv, 
10-12.  "  But  there  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  the  inspiration 
of  the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding,"  Job  xxxii,  8. 
"  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered 
into  the  heart  of  man,  the  things  which  God  hath  pre- 
pared for  them  that  love  him.  But  God  hath  revealed 
them  unto  us  by  his  Spirit,"  1  Cor.  ii,  9,  10.  "  The  day- 
spring  from  on  high  hath  visited  us,  to  give  light  to  them 
that  sit  in  darkness,  and  in  the  shadow  of  death,"  Luke  i, 
78,  79.  "  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law  ;  for  I  had 
not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not 
covet,"  Rom.  vii,  7.  "  How  shall  they  call  on  him  in 
whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  And  how  shall  they  believe 
in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  And  how  shall 
they  hear  without  a  preacher?  So  then  faith  cometh  by 
hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God.  I  was  found  of 
them  that  sought  me  not.  I  was  made  manifest  unto  them 
that  asked  not  after  me,"  Rom.  x,  14.  17,  20. 

However  unwilling  modern  philosophers,  who  have  re- 
ceived all  their  true  wisdom  from  the  Bible,  may  be  to 
confess  the  insufficiency  of  human  reason  in  thino-s 
Divine,  the  sages  of  antiquity  were  honest  enough  to 
acknowledge  the  uncertainty  of  its  researches. 

Pythagoras  changed  the  name  of  wise  men  into  lovers 


12  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OP    DIVINE    THINGS 

of  wisdom,  as  believing  it  not  to  be  attained  by  human 
means.  Socrates  often  repeated,  "  that  he  knew  but  one 
thing  with  certainty,  and  that  was  his  ignorance  of  all 
things."  Plato  frequently  reminds  his  pupils,  that  in  re- 
ligious subjects  they  were  not  to  expect  proof,  but  only 
probability  from  them.  Aristotle  condemns  his  predeces- 
sors as  the  most  foolish  and  vainglorious  persons  in  the 
world,  from  a  conviction  of  their  ignorance,  and  the  vanity 
of  imagining  that  he  had  carried  philosophy  to  the  utmost 
perfection  it  was  capable  of;  though  no  one  said  or  be- 
lieved less  of  Divine  things  than  he  did.  TuUy  complains 
that  we  are  blind  in  the  discernment  of  wisdom ;  that 
some  unaccountable  error,  and  miserable  ignorance  of  the 
truth,  has  got  possession  of  us.  The  Stoics  pretended 
to  know  all  things;  yet  Plutarch  says,  "that  there 
neither  had  been,  nor  was  a  wise  man  on  the  face  of 
the  earth."  Lactantius  observes,  "  They  could  not  ex- 
ceed the  powers  of  nature,  nor  speak  truth  on  these 
(sacred)  subjects,  having  never  learned  it  of  him  who 
alone  could  instruct  them ;  nor  ever  came  so  near  it 
as  when  they  confessed  their  ignorance  of  it."  Epictetus 
found  so  much  uncertainty  in  Divine  things,  that  like 
many  other  heathen  philosophers,  he  advised  every  one 
to  follow  the  custom  of  his  country.  {Dr.  Ellis  on  the 
Knowledge  of  Divine  Things.) 

Socrates  told  Alcibiades,  "  It  is  necessary  you  should 
wait  for  some  person  to  teach  you  how  you  ought  to  be- 
have yourself  toward  both  the  gods  and  men.  He  (says 
he)  will  do  it  who  takes  a  true  care  of  you.  But, 
methinks,  as  we  read  in  Homer,  that  as  Minerva  dis- 
sipated the  mist  that  covered  Diomedes,  and  hindered 
him  from  distinguishing  God  and  man  ;  so  it  is  necessary 
that  he  should  in  the  first  place  scatter  the  darkness  that 
covers  your  soul,  and  afterward  give  you  those  remedies  that 
are  necessary  to  put  you  in  a  condition'of  discerning  good 
and  evil ;  for  at  present  you  know  not  how  to  make  a  dif- 
ference." (Stanley's  Lives.)  '«  Plato  wished  for  a  pro- 
phet  to  reveal  the  will  of  God  to  us,  without  which  we 
cannot  know  it."  And  Plutarch  says  the  same,  "that 
the  knowledge  of  the  gods  can  be  had  only  from  them." 
Thus  did  they  plainly  attribute  whatever  Ihey  knew  of 
the  gods,  or  of  Divine  things,  to  no  principle  but  the  gods. 


NOT  ATTAINABLE  BY  REASON.  13 

The  prospect  of  fining  Divine  truth  by  the  exertions 
>of  unassisted  reason  will  now  appear  gloomy.  But  the 
confidence  of  rational  Christians  is  not  so  easily  abashed 
as  is  that  of  rational  heathens.  That  we  may  enter  into  a 
more  minute  examination  of  the  pretensions  of  this'^oasted 
power,  let  us  inquire  : 

1.  Can  we,  by  the  exertions  of  unassisted  reason,  find 
out  the  being  and  perfections  of  God  ? 

When  Hiero,  tyrant  of  Syracuse,  asked  the  philosopher 
Simonides,  that  important  question,  What  is  God?  the 
prudent  philosopher  required  a  day  to  consider  it,  and 
doubled  his  request  whenever  he  was  called  upon  to  give 
in  his  answer.  When  Hiero  was  weary  of  procrastina- 
tion, and  inquired  the  reason  of  this  delay  : — "  Because," 
said  the  philosopher,  "  the  longer  I  consider  the  subject, 
the  more  I  am  at  a  loss  for  a  reply." 

Such  were  the  modesty  and  diffidence  of  Simonides ! 
One  who  was  much  more  justly  reputed  for  wisdom,  ex- 
claimed,  "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  botli  of  the  wisdom 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  God  !  How  unsearchable  are  his 
judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out !"  Rom.  xi,  33. 
"  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God  1  canst  thou  find  out 
the  Almighty  to  perfection  !  It  is  as  high  as  heaven : 
what  canst  thou  do  ?  deeper  than  hell,  what  canst  thou 
know  ?  The  measure  thereof  is  longer  than  the  earth,  and 
broader  than  the  sea.  But  vain  man  would  be  wise, 
though  man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass'  colt,"  Job  xi,  7,  9, 
12.  The  labour,  however,  has  always  been  useless : 
"  The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,"  1  Cor.  i,  21. — 
Among  those  who  have  not  seen  the  dawn  of  Divine  re- 
velation, "  there  is  none  that  understandeth,  that  seeketh 
after  God,"  Rom.  iii,  11.  "For  what  man  knoweth  the 
things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  a  man  which  is  in  him  ? 
Even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit 
of  God,"  iCor.  ii,  11. 

Suppose  a  person  whose  powers  of  argumentation  are 
improved  to  the  utmost  pitch  of  human  capacity,  but  who 
has  received  no  idea  of  tlie  existence  or  attributes  of  God 
by  any  revelation,  whether  from  tradition,  Scripture,  or  in- 
spiration  ;  how  is  he  to  convince  himself  that  God  is,  and 
from  whence  is  he  to  learn  what  God  is  ?  That  of  which,  as 
yet,  he  kifOws  nothing,  cannot  be  a  subject  of  his  thought, 

2 


14  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OF    DIVINE    THINGS 

his  reasonings,  or  his  conversation,  "  He  that  answeretfe 
a  matter  before  he  heareth  it,  it  is  folly  and  shame  to  him." 
He  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny,  till  he  know  what  is  to  be 
affirmed  or  denied.  It  never  will,  it  never  can,  enter  into 
his  mind  to  inquire  whether  there  be  a  God,  till  he  have 
heard  of  such  a  being,  or  have  formed  some  conception  of 
him.  "  The  mind,"  says  Mr.  Locke,  "  in  all  its  thoughts 
and  reasonings,  hath  no  other  immediate  object  but  its  own 
ideas  ;  so  that  all  our  knowledge  is  conversant  about 
them."  (Lib.  iv,  c.  i,  sec.  9.)  "  Wherever  we  want 
ideas  our  reasoning  stops :  we  are  at  the  end  of  our 
reckoning."  (Lib.  iv,  c.  xvii,  sec.  9.)  The  question  then  is. 
From  whence  must  our  supposed  philosopher  derive,  in  the 
first  instance,  his  idea  of  the  infinite  Being,  concerning 
the  reality  of  whose  existence  he  is,  in  the  second  instance, 
to  decide  ?  Will  a  close  inspection  of  every  part  of  the 
visible  creation  inspire  him  with  the  vast  idea  of  an  incor- 
poreal, invisible,  unbeginning,  everlasting,  immutable,  and 
infinitely  perfect  Spirit  ? 

Will  the  idea  of  matter  suggest  an  idea  of  immateriality  ? 
Not  unless  to  one  who  is  in  the  habit  of  reasoning  by  the 
rule  of  contraries.  And  when  the  idea  of  immateriality 
is  struck  out  of  matter,  what  is  it  but  a  negative  idea  : 
that  is,  an  idea  of  nothing  1  The  positive  idea  of  spirit  i& 
still  wanting. 

Will  the  idea  of  one's  self  suggest  the  idea  of  spirit  ? 
This  question  scarcely  needs  to  be  proposed  to  a  Socinian 
who  holds  the  doctrine  of  materialism.  Neither  the  idea 
of  body,  nor  the  consciousness  which  he  has  of  thinking, 
reasoning,  comparing,  judging,  and  deciding — in  a  word, 
neither  his  intellect  nor  his  will  conveys  to  him  the  idea 
of  spirit.  Those  who  know  that  "  there  is  a  spirit  in  man" 
might  pardon  this  ignorance  of  the  Socinians,  if  the  latter 
had  no  opportunity  of  loading  the  Bible,  when  the  great 
metaphysician,  Locke,  could  attain  i>o  idea  of  spirit  but 
from  revelation.  "  For  he  who  will  give  himself  leave  to 
consider  freely,  (says  he,)  will  scarce  find  his  reason  able 
to  determine  him  fixedly  for  or  against  the  soul's  immate^ 
riality  :  it  being  impossible  for  us,  by  the  contemplation 
of  our  own  ideas,  without  revelation,  to  discover  whether 
omnipotence  has  not  given '  to  some  systems  of  matter* 
fitly  disposed,  a  power  to  perceive  and  think."  (Lib.  x, 
c.  iii,  sec.  6.) 


NOT  ATTAINABLE  BY  REASON.  15 

But  if  we  suppose  it -possible  for  a  person  who  is  a  per- 
fect stranger  to  every  part  of  Divine  revelation,  and  to  all 
traditional  notices  of  truths  originally  discovered  by  reve- 
lation, to  infer  from  his  own  experience  that  he  is  himself 
a  spirit,  united  with  a  certain  portion  of  matter,  a»d  per- 
ceiving and  acting  by  bodily  organs  ;  how  can  this  infer, 
ence  suggest  the  idea  of  a  spirit  wholly  unconnected  with 
matter,  and  having  no  bodily  organs  whereby  to  perceive 
or  act  ?  Cicero  affirms  that  "  a  pure  mind,  thinking,  in- 
telligent, and  free  from  body,  was  altogether  inconceiv- 
able." (Nat.  Deor.)  Created  spirits,  separate  from  body, 
are  supposed  not  to  be  known ;  and,  indeed,  if  they  do 
exist,  do  not  come  under  our  notice. 

The  whole  visible  world,  with  the  myriads  of  ideas  with 
which  it  furnishes  us,  however  those  various  ideas  may  be 
compounded,  can  never  suggest  one  idea  of  what  is  in  its 
nature  invisible.  Ten  thousand  beings,  beginning  and 
ending,  existing  by  succession  and  succeeding  each  other, 
could  never  lead  to  the  idea  of  a  being  who  is  "  from  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting,"  and  "  with  whom  there  is  no  vari- 
ableness, neither  shadow  of  turning."  To  see  imperfection 
and  mutability  in  every  thing  around,  could  never  lead  us, 
by  any  train  of  thinking,  to  the  idea  of  a  being  who  is  abso- 
lutely perfect,  and  to  whom  no  change  is  possible.  In  a 
word,  "Every  thing  about  us  being  finite,  we  have  none 
but  finite  ideas,  and  it  would  be  an  act  of  omnipotence  to 
stretch  them  to  infinite." 

2.  If,  unaided  by  revelation,  we  can  trace  neither  God 
nor  separate  spirit,  is  it  possible  for  us  to  trace  the  devil  ? 
If  the  devil  be  a  "  deceiver,"  no  wonder  that  mankind 
should  be  deceived  with  respect  to  his  existence  and  opera- 
tions.  If  Satan  be  "  the  prince  of  darkness,"  he  will  not 
make  himself  manifest.  It  is  no  more  wonder  that  Mr.  G. 
cannot  see  a  devil  than  that  he  cannot  see  darkness  ;  for 
•''  that  which  maketh  manifest  is  light." 

3.  But  suppose  the  existence  of  God,  the  author  of  all 
good,  and  of  a  devil,  the  author  of  evil,  to  be  already 
known  :  how,  without  Divine  revelation,  can  reason  as- 
sure us  that  vvhen  a  man  has  rebelled  against  God,  and 
yielded  himself  to  the  influence  of  the  devil,  God  will  par- 
don his  rebellion  and  rescue  him  from  the  tyranny  of  that 
usurper  i,  It  cannot  be  argued  as  the  necessary  result  of  the 


16  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OF    DIVINE    THtNGS 

Divine  perfections  ;  for  such  a  supposition  would  prove 
too  much.  If  God  must  of  necessity  pardon  the  criminal^ 
for  precisely  the  same  reason  he  cannot  possibly  have  been 
ever  displeased.  If  he  must  of  necessity  remit  the  punish- 
ment of  the  crime  ;  for  the  same  reason  no  punishment 
was  ever  due.  In  a  word  :  if  he  must  of  necessity  rescue 
the  prisoner,  and  restore  him  to  himself,  for  the  same  rea- 
son he  never  could  permit  him  to  depart,  or  the  devil  to 
gain  any  advantage  against  him. 

The  pardon  and  salvation  of  a  sinner  must  depend  en- 
tirely on  the  "  good  pleasure  of  the  will  of  God,"  wha 
"  will  have  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  will 
have  compassion  on  whom  he  will  have  compassion.'' — 
They  cannot  be  necessary  ;  they  must  be  arbitrary.  If 
they  are  not  necessary,  they  cannot  be  positively  proved 
from  his  perfections  ;  and  if  they  are  arbritrary,  they  can- 
not be  known  to  us,  unless  he  l>e  pleased  to  reveal  them. 
"  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  or  who  hath 
been  his  counsellor  ?  Or  who  hath  first  given  to  him, 
and  it  shall  be  recompensed  to  him  again  1"  Romans 
xi,  34,  35. 

We  cannot,  from  the  experience  which  we  have  of  his 
goodness  in  supplying  our  wants,  and  in  providing  anti- 
dotes to  many  of  the  evils  of  human  life,  conclusively  argue 
that  he  is  willing  to  forgive  our  sins,  and  to  heal  our 
mental  diseases.  To  reason  thus  is  to  found  a  universal 
proposition  upon  a  particular  one.  It  is  to  argue  from  the 
less  to  the  greater.  This  is  not  properly  argument,  but 
presumption.  "  These,"  we  might  rather  say,  "  are  parts  of 
his  ways,  but  how  little  a  portion  is  heard  of  him  ?  but  the 
thunder  of  his  power  who  can  understand  ?"  .Tob  xxvi,  14. 
Beside  this  :  a  man  might,  with  greater  precision,  argue 
that  he  who  lives  in  the  wilful  connuission  of  sin,  in  so  do- 
ing  abuses  all  the  benefits  whicii  he  receives,  and  aggra- 
vates his  sin  in  proportion  to  the  goodne<is  which  he  abuses  ; 
and  that  thus  he  may  possibly  throw  all  the  weight  of  the 
argument  which  is  adduced  to  prove  God's  pardoning- 
mercy,  into  the  scale  of  Divine  justice.  Mercies  abused 
can  never  show  the  probability  of  the  forgiveness  of  the 
abuse.  Again  :  it  is  not  true  tjmt  God  has  provided  anti- 
dotes to  all  our  bodily  diseases ;  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  we  do  not  know  of  such  provision.     Many  of  the 


NOl'    ATTAINABLE    BY   REASON.  17 

■iiisotders  of  the  humaA  body  are  incurable  and  mortal ; 
and  therefore  it  follows  analogically,  that  it  is  at  least 
possible,  for  any  thing  that  reason  can  find  to  the  con- 
trary,  that  some  of  our  mental  diseases  have  no  anti- 
dote, and  may  prove  destructive.  •^ 

If  reason  cannot  assure  us  that  God  will  show  mercy  to 
the  transgressors  of  his  law,  it  must  be  impossible  for  us, 
without  a  declaration  of  his  will,  to  ascertain  on  what  terms 
he  will  forgive  and  save  us.  The  terms  of  his  mercy  will 
not  be  such  as  a  criminal  would  suggest  or  choose.  The 
wickedness  of  such  a  one  is  proof  that  he  has  but  mean 
ideas  of  the  Divine  perfections,  and  that  he  has  not  a  pro- 
per sense  of  the  honour  which  is  due  to  the  Most  High. 
The  offended,  and  not  the  offender,  must  fix  on  the  terms 
of  reconciliation.  Here,  therefore,  reason  will  again  be 
at  a  loss.  Repentance  and  reformation  may  appear  to  the 
eye  of  reason  to  be  necessary  to  this  end ;  but  it  cannot, 
■without  unreasonable  partiality,  be  assumed  that  they  will 
certainly  be  accepted.  In  a  thousand  cases  repentance 
does  not  repair  the  damage  which  has  been  done  by  sin. 
When  a  man  has  ruined  his  fortune  and  his  constitution 
by  his  profligacy,  can  he  repair  them  by  mere  repentance 
and  reformation  ?  When  a  man  has  hurt  the  reputation, 
the  property,  the  body,  or  the  mind  of  his  neighbour,  what 
atonement  can  he  make  by  repentance  and  reformation  ? 
in  like  manner,  when  a  man  has,  by  his  transgressions, 
robbed,  dishonoured,  and  grieved  the  Almighty,  what  re- 
compense does  he  render  to  his  Maker  by  a  dis-continuance 
of  his  former  practices  ?  Is  it  beyond  contradiction  clear 
that  God  is  honoured  by  our  amendment,  as  much  as  he 
was  dishonoured  by  our  sin  ?  that  reformation  restores  to 
him  the  benefits  which  we  have  abused  ?  that  repentance 
is  pleasing  to  him  in  the  full  proportion  in  which  wick- 
edness is  displeasing?  Can  a  penitent  sinner  do  more 
than  give  to  God  all  his  heart,  and  devote  to  him  all 
the  residue  of  his  life  1  and  would  not  thus  much  have 
been  due  from  him,  if  he  had  never  revolted?  Repent- 
ance and  reformation,  then,  can,  by  no  form  of  argu- 
mentation, be  proved  to  be  all  that  is  demanded  in  order 
to  our  being  forgiven  and  restored.  "  The  word  of  recon- 
•ciliation"  alone  can  inform  us  how  God  can  "  be  just 
^nd  the-ijustifier"  of  a  penitent  sinner.     "  His  thoughts 


18  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OF    DIVIDE    THIITGS 

are  not  our  thoughts,  neither  are  his  ways  our  ways  :  for 
as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  tlie  earth,  so  are  his  ways 
higher  than  our  ways,  and  his  thoughts  than  our  thoughts," 
Isa.  Iv,  8,  9.  The  "  way  of  the  Lord"  can  only  be  un- 
derstood  from  Divine  revelation,  in  which  he  "  has  made 
known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to  his 
good  pleasure  which  he  had  purposed  in  himself,"  Eph, 
i,  9. 

4.  There  is  still  another  subject  connected  with  the 
present  controversy,  on  which  reason  is  utterly  silent  :  the 
duration  of  future  punishment. 

Reason  cannot  assure  us  of  a  future  state  of  existence. 
It  cannot  ascertain  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The  great 
reasoners  of  heathen  antiquity  thought  the  immortality 
of  man  only  probable.  Socrates  stands  the  foremost  as  its 
advocate.  But  was  he  able  to  convince  his  friends  of  the 
truth  of  it  ?  Nay,  was  he  himself  thoroughly  convinced  ? 
We  appeal  to  the  famous  conclusion  of  his  speech  to  his 
judges  : — "  But  now  it  is  true,  we  should  all  retire  to  our 
respective  offices  ;  you  to  live,  and  I  to  die.  But  whether 
you  or  I  are  going  upon  the  better  expedition,  is  known 
to  none  but  God."  An  attentive  reader  of  Plato's  Dia- 
logues may  discover  in  them  a  great  deal  of  inconclusive 
reasoning  on  this  subject.  "  I  have,"  says  Cicero,  "  pe- 
rused Plato  with  the  greatest  diligence  and  exactness,  over 
and  over  again  :  but  know  not  how  it  is.  while  I  read  him, 
I  am  convinced  ;  when  I  lay  the  book  aside,  and  begin  to 
consider  by  myself  of  the  soul's  immortality,  all  the  con- 
viction instantly  ceases."  (Tusc.  2,  lib.  i,  n.  11.)  "If, 
after  all,  I  am  mistaken  in  my  belief  of  the  soul's  immor- 
tality, I  am  pleased  with  my  error."  (De  Setiect.)  Such 
was  the  uncertainty  in  which,  on  this  important  subject, 
the  strongest  minds  were  held  ! 

Human  reason,  when  the  question  is  agitated,  may  sug- 
gest many  arguments  which  render  it  probable  tliat  this  is 
not  our  final  state;  but  certainty  from  that  source  is  im- 
possible. That  which  had  a  beginning  may  possibly  have 
an  end.  "  Had  the  soul  a  natural  immortality  the  origin 
of  life  in  itself,  it  could  never  cease  to  be ;  it  would  be 
Ciod."  But,  like  nil  created  beings,  it  is  dependent  on  its 
Creator,  "  in  whom  it  lives,  and  moves,  and  has  its  be. 
'  ing."     It  is  therefore  dependent  on  the  sovereign  will  of 


NOT  ATTAINABLE  BY  REASON.  19 

Him  who  sees  the  posaibiUty  "  that  the  spirit  should  fail 
before  him,  and  the  souls  which  he  has  made,"  Isaiah 
Ivii,  16. 

And  from  whence  can  reason  infer  how  long  it  is  the 
will  of  God  to  prolong  the  existence  of  the  human  soul  ? 
That  he  has  designed  it  for  an  eternal,  or  even  for  a  future 
state  of  existence,  cannot  be  inferred  from  its  nature,  the 
growth  of  its  faculties,  its  abhorrence  of  annihilation,  or 
its  desire  of  existence.     By  the  nature  of  the  soul,  I  mean 
its  immateriality.    But  reason  does  not  uniformly  perceive 
that  it  is  immaterial.     Who  can  argue  with  greater  pre- 
cision than  the  Socinians  ?     Yet  many  of  them  are  tho- 
roughly convinced  that  their  souls  are  no  other  than  mere 
matter.    These  cannot  argue  that,  because  the  human  soui 
is  immaterial,  it  is  immortal.     All  their  hope  is  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body.     But  suppose  the  soul  to  be   spirit, 
and  that  some  philosophers  are  aware  that  a  spirit  is  im- 
material ;  can  it  be  fairly  and  confidently  affirmed  that  it  is 
therefore  immortal  ?     Its  immateriality  renders  it  impos- 
sible  that  it  should  be  destroyed  by  a  dissolution  of  its 
parts  ;  for  that  which  is  immaterial  has  no  parts.     But 
how  does  it  appear  that  there  is  no  method  of  annihilation, 
but  dissolution  ?    Because  the  soul  cannot  perish  by  the 
same  means  by  which  the   body  dies,   does  it  follow  that 
it  is  ""immortal?     The  immortality  of  the  soul  cannot  be 
inferred  from  the  growth  of  its  faculties.     We  see  human 
bodies  in  a  state  of  progressive  improvement  till  they  arrive 
at  a  certain  point,  beyond  which  they  speedily  decline,  and 
sooner  or  later  perish.     And  how  shall  we  ascertain  that 
there  is  not  a  fixed  point,  beyond  which  the  human  mind 
is  incapable  of  improvement ;  a  zenith   which  it  passes, 
and  then  makes  haste  to  set  in  darkness  ?     Its    abhor- 
rence of  annihilation,  and  its  desire  of  perpetual  exist- 
ence,  cannot  prove  to  us  its  endless  duration.     In   truth, 
the  abhorrence  of  annihilation,  and  the  desire  of  immor- 
tality,  are  neither  so  universal,  nor  so  uniform,   as  those 
who  triumph  in  the  argument  adduced  from  them  assume. 
But  if  they  were  universal  and  uniform,  they,  in  this  case, 
prove  nothing.     How  many  evils  which  we  abhor,  befall 
us  !  and  hoAV  few  of  our  desires  are  gratified  !  Who  would 
infer  that  he  should  never  want,  because  he  shrinks  at  the 
thought  of  poverty?  or  that  he  shall  one  day  be  a  king, 


20  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OP    DIVINE    THINGS 

because  his  head  itches  for  a  diadem  ?  This  argument 
would  just  as  well  convince  us  of  the  immortality  of  the 
body,  as  of  that  of  the  soul. 

Again  :  reason  cannot  assure  us  of  the  future  resur» 
rectiou  of  the  body.  The  heathens  did  not  place  this 
hope  of  the  Christian  even  among  probabilities ;  nay, 
some  of  them  thought  it  impossible.  "  God,"  says  Pliny, 
"  cannot  do  all  things,  neither  recall  the  dead,  nor  make 
mortal  creatures  immortal."  Hence,  when  St.  Paul 
preached  to  the  Stoics  and  Epicureans  at  Athens,  they 
treated  him  as  "  a  setter-forth  of  new  gods,  because  he 
preached  to  them  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  ;"  and  would 
hear  no  more  from  one  who  could  be  guilty  of  mentioning 
such  an  absui'dity.  And  who  can  wonder  at  the  error  of 
those  who  "  knew  not  the  Scriptures,  neither  the  power  of 
God  ?"  Which  of  us  has  seen  a  dead  body  revive  ? 
What  is  there  left  in  a  rotten  carcass,  the  dust  of  which 
is  scattered  before  the  winds  of  heaven,  to  lead  us  to  look 
for  a  resuscitation  ?  "  Can  these  dry  bones  live  ?  Lord, 
thou  knowest."  And  who  beside  knows,  unless  the  Lord 
of  life  have  been  pleased  to  give  some  intimation  of  his 
purpose  ?  We  can  indeed  reason  on  this  subject  from 
analogy.  We  see  that  day  uniformly  follows  night  ;  and 
therefore  argue  that  the  night  of  death  may  be  followed  by 
the  morning  of  a  resurrection  ?  Very  true ;  it  may ;  but 
is  it  evident  from  hence  that  it  shall  ?  Might  not  one, 
with  equal  propriety,  attempt  in  this  way  to  prove  an  end- 
less succession  of  sleeping  and  waking,  of  dying  and  re- 
viving 1  Again  :  every  spring  produces  a  resurrection  in 
the  vegetable  world,  from  whence  some  men  of  great  name 
infer  that  there  will  at  length  be  a  resurrection  in  the  ani- 
mal world  ;  and  the  apostle's  allusion  to  a  grain  of  wheat, 
which  "  is  not  quickened  except  it  die,"  is  thought  to  give 
countenance  to  the  argument,  and  to  prove  its  validity. 
Now,  not  to  say  that  it  is  but  a  lan>e  argument  which 
wants  a  proof  to  support  it,  is  it  not  plain  that  St.  Paul 
makes  use  of  that  allusion,  not  to  demonstrate,  but  to  illus- 
trate a  future  resurrection?  If  it  be  an  argument,  the  fol- 
lowing is  well  adapted  to  destroy  it.  "  Tiiere  is  hope  of 
a  tree,  if  it  be  cut  down,  that  it  will  sprout  again,  and  that 
the  tender  branch  thereof  will  not  cease  :  tliough  the  root 
thereof  was  old  in  the  earth,  and  the  stock  thereof  die  in 


NOT  ATTAINABLE  BY  REASON.  21 

the  ground ;  yet  throiJgh  the  scent  of  water  it  will  bud, 
and  bring  forth  boughs  like  a  plant.  But  man  dieth, 
and  wasteth  away  ;  yea,  man  giveth  up  the  ghost,  and 
where  is  he  ?" 

Now  if  it  is  impossible  for  human  reason  to'^decide 
on  a  future  state  of  existence,  or  to  point  out  the  term 
of  that  existence,  it  cannot  determine  the  duration  of  the 
future  punishment  of  the  wicked.  To  say  nothing  of  the 
partiality  of  a  man  in  his  own  cause,  or  of  the  unwilling- 
ness of  a  criminal  to  sign  his  own  death  warrant,  it  is  not 
possible  for  him,  however  he  may  be  disposed,  to  assign 
the  nature  and  duration  of  the  punishment  which  he  has 
deserved.  To  do  this,  he  must  "  know  the  Almighty  to 
perfection."  He  must  be  able  to  discern,  as  well  as  will- 
ing  to  acknowledge,  what  is  due  from  the  intelligent  and 
accountable  creatures  of  God,  to  the  Divine  majesty, 
purity,  justice,  and  goodness.  Unless  he  can  compre- 
hend thus  much,  he  has  no  data  on  which  to  ground  his 
decision  of  this  important  question,  and  must  therefore 
refer  it  to  that  Gospel  in  which  "  the  wrath  of  God 
is  revealed  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness." 

Should  that  knowledge  of  Divine  things  which,  after 
all,  the  wiser  heathens  confessedly  possessed,  render  it 
doubtful  whether  reason  be  so  inadequate  to  the  attain- 
ment of  it  as  has  been  represented,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  add  that  they  enjoyed  the  partial  and  imperfect  light 
of  a  remote  revelation.  The  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  had  frequent  Divine  communications ;  and 
Joseph,  who  indubitably  learned  much  from  his  progeni- 
tors, was  no  stranger  to  them.  While  the  latter  reigned 
in  Egypt,  much  valuable  light  would  be  diffused  among 
the  inhabitants  of  that  country.  Tiie  Egyptians  would 
make  considerable  improvement  in  Divine  knowledge 
during  the  captivity  of  Israel,  and  not  a  little  by  the  mi- 
raculous deliverance.  The  Greeks  studied  wisdom  in 
Egypt,  and  afterward  imparted  it  to  the  Romans.  As 
the  Israelites  were  appointed  the  •'  witnesses"  of  Jehovah, 
some  small  measure  of  Divine  knowledge  emanated  from 
them,  and  was  shed  on  the  nations  more  immediately 
surrounding  them.  Thus  it  was  that  the  sages  of  anti- 
quity obtained,  not  from  reason,  but  from  revelation, 
their  best  maxims  and  their  most  valuable  knowledge. 


22  THE    KNOWLEDGE    OF    DIVINE    THINGS 

And  thus  "  every  good  and  perfect  gift"  may  be  traced 
up  to  "  the  Father  of  Hghts." 

It  will  very  probably  be  objected  that  the  Scriptures 
refer  us  to  the  works  of  God,  and  that  from  those  works 
we  may  learn  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  be  led  by  the 
creatures  to  the  Creator. 

When  God  has  declared  himself  to  men,  he  justly  ap- 
peals to  his  works  as  vouchers  for  the  character  w  hich  he 
has  given  of  himself,  and  of  the  wisdom,  power,  and  good- 
ness, in  which  he  would  teach  them  to  trust.  But  unless 
the  idea  of  a  God  lead  mankind  to  consider  the  creatures 
as  the  works  of  his  hands,  his  works  would  never  lead 
them  to  him.  It  is  not  by  reason,  but  "  by  faith,  we 
understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed  by  the  word 
of  God,"  Heb.  xi,  3.  To  make  appeals  to  tlie  works  of 
God,  as  independent  proofs  of  his  existence,  among  those 
to  whom  a  verbal  revelation  was  addressed,  were  un- 
necessary. That  the  Old  Testament  is  full  of  appeals 
to  the  works  of  God,  is  too  obvious  to  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. But  on  close  examination,  the  true  reason  for  those 
appeals  will  be  found  to  be  this:  the  nations  who  sur- 
rounded the  Israelites  were,  without  exception,  worship, 
pers  of  idols  ;  and  the  God  of  Israel  wished  to  be  distin- 
guished from  all  the  objects  of  their  worship  as  "Jehovah, 
who  made  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  all  things 
therein."  On  this  account,  the  Jews  were  taught  to  sing, 
"  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament 
showeth  his  handy  work." 

It  may  be  worth  while,  however,  to  spend  a  moment  in 
the  consideration  of  one  part  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  it  is  generally  supposed  that  St.  Paul  appeals  to  the 
works  of  God  as  proofs  of  tiie  being  of  God.  The  pas- 
sage alluded  to,  which  we  will  examine  as  we  proceed,  is 
the  following: — "That  which  may  be  known  of  God  is 
manifest  in  (or  among)  them  (the  Gentiles  ;)  for  God  hath 
showed  it  unto  them."  Here  we  see  that  God  hath  given 
to  them  sotne  knowledge  of  hiuiself.  He  had  not  left 
them  to  the  instructions  of  unassisted  reason.  "  For  the 
invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  (i.  e., 
from  the  beginning)  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood 
(not  demonstrated)  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  (not 
his  existence,  but)  his  eternal  power  and  godhead,  so  that 


NOT  ATTAINABLE  BY  REASON.  23 

they  are  without  excu«e.  Because  that  (instead  of  find- 
ing out  God  when  they  knew  him  not)  when  they  knew 
God  they  glorified  him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful, 
but  became  vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish 
heart  was  darkened.  Pi-ofessing  themselves  to  be  wise, 
they  became  fools  ;  and  changed  the  glory  of  the  incor- 
ruptible God  into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man, 
and  to  birds,  and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things." 
And  thus  the  things  that  are  made,  and  from  which  the 
eternal  power  and  godhead  of  Him  who  had  showed  him- 
self to  them  might  have  been  reflected,  were  by  these 
professors  of  wisdom  made  the  objects  of  their  worship. 
Instead  of  leading  them  to  him,  they  had  led  them  wholly 
away  from  him. 


CHAPTER  n. 

On  the  Impropriety  of  making  Human  Reason  the  Test  of 
the  Doctrines  of  Divine  Revelation. 

Having  removed  the  rotten  foundation  of  Socinianism, 
we  may  now,  at  our  leisure,  pile  up  and  burn  the  "  wood, 
hay,  and  stubble,"  which  have  been  built  upon  it.  The 
unreasonable  pretensions  which  are  erected  on  Mr.  G.'s 
first  position,  are  as  follows  : — 

"  To  what  end  was  reason  given  ?  Precisely,  that  it 
might  be  the  rule  of  hfe ;  the  helm  by  which  we  must 
steer  our  course  across  the  tempestuous  billows  of  mor- 
tality ;  the  touchstone  of  every  doctrine  ;  the  supreme 
umpire  in  every  difficulty  and  doubt.  '  Try  the  spirits,' 
says  the  Apostle  John,  try  their  doctrines,  '  whether  they 
be  of  God.'  By  what  are  they  to  be  tried,  unless  reason 
in  every  instance  is  to  be  the  judge  ?"  {Sermon  on  Chris, 
tianity  an  IntellectuaJ  and  Individual  Religion,  p.  10.) 

When  Mr.  G.  says  that  reason  is  the  helm  by  which 
we  are  to  steer,  the  supreme  umpire  in  every  difficulty 
and  doubt,  and  the  judge  in  every  trial,  he  has  hit 
the  truth  more  "  precisely"  than  he  perhaps  intended. 
But  this  grave  judge  wants  a  touchstone  ;  this  supreme 
umpire  wants  a  rule  by  which  infallibly  to  decide.  A 
helm  is  certainly  a  necessary  thing  for  steering  a  ship, 
Whetheij,  "  across   the  tempestuous  billows,"    or    before 


24  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF   THE 

them.  But  surely  something  more  than  a  helm  is  neces- 
sary to  those  who  would  cross  the  patliless  deserts  of  the 
deep.  It'  Mr.  G.  were  turned  adrift,  a  hundred  leagues 
from  land,  when  neither  sun  nor  stars  appear,  without  a 
chart,  without  a  compass,  and  without  a  pilot,  he  would 
find  that  a  helm  alone  is  but  a  useless  thing ;  and  would 
well  enough  exemplify  the  folly  and  madness  of  those  phi- 
losophical theologians  who  make  Divine  revelation  bow 
before  human  reason.  Or,  if  he  would  condescend  to  em- 
bark  with  those  who  understand  the  art  of  spiritual  navi- 
gation a  little  better  than  himself,  he  might  probably  learn 
that  while  Socinian  landmen  throw  their  charts  overboard, 
and  nail  their  compass  down  to  the  point  on  which  they 
have  resolved  to  steer  because  their  helmsman  is  a  lubber, 
the  orthodox  mariners  learn  the  course  which  they  are 
to  steer,  only  from  their  chart ;  use  their  compass  to  direct 
them  on  the  course  which  is  thus  prescribed,'  and  oblige 
their  helmsmaii,  though  "  a  seaman  every  inch  of  him," 
to  steer,  not  according  to  his  own  whims,  but  according 
to  the  directions  of  their  pilot. 

It  is  not  "  precisely"  the  same  thing  to  assert  that  rca- 
son  is  the  "rule"  by  which  reason,  the  "judge,"  must 
"  try  the  spirits  ;"  or  that  it  is  the  "  touchstone  of  every 
doctrine"  by  which  this  "  supreme  umpire"  is,  "  in  every 
difficulty  and  doubt,"  to  decide.  Mr.  G.  has  made  a  gross 
mistake  in  calling  St.  John  as  an  evidence  of  the  propriety 
of  making  reason  "  the  touchstone  of  every  doctrine.'" 
"  Beloved,"  says  the  apostle,  "  believe  not  every  spirit, 
but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God ;  because  many 
false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world."  Thus  he 
makes  reason  the  "judge"  in  this  question,  but  by  no 
means  the  "  touchstone"  by  which  it  is  to  be  tried.  He 
gives  us  a  scriptural  test,  and  teaches  us  to  bring  every 
doctrine  to  the  touchstone  of  revealed  truth.  "Hereby 
know  ye  the  S|)irit  of  God.  Every  spiiit  that  confesseth 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God ;  and 
every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  tlie  llesii,  is  not  of  God,"  1  John  iv,  1-3. 

That  "  neither  Jesus  Christ  nor  his  apostles  rejected 
reason"  as  the  judge,  we  readily  grant.  And  this,  as  the 
slightest  examination  of  Mr.  6.'s  quotations  will  show, 
'  is  all  that  he  has  proved.     Who  but  himself  would  have 


DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION.  25 

thwight  that  Jesus  Chrtst  taught  us  to  appeal  from  the 
Scriptures  to  the  "  touchstone"  of  reason,  when,  on   a 
subject  of  pure  revelation,  he  said  to  the  Jews,  "  Searcjj 
the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life  ; 
and  they  (not  reason)  are  they  which  testify  of  nie?*'  John 
V,  39.      Equally  distant  from  the  point  to  be  proved  is  the 
text  which  he  has  cited  from  St.  Paul,  and  which,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  context,  runs  thus  :  "  Wherefore, 
my  dearly  beloved,  flee  from  idolatry.     I   speak  as   to 
■wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say.     The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  ?   The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  commu- 
nion of  the  body  of  Christ,"  1   Cor.  x,   14-16.      Here 
the  apostle  appeals,  not  to  reason,  but  to  the  institution 
and  design   of  the  Lord's  supper,  which  is  a  doctrine  of 
pure  revelation.     Unless,  therefore,    Mr.  G.  can    prove 
that  grounding  an  argument  on  the  infallible  testimony 
of  divine  revelation  is  the  same  thing  as  to  submit  the 
doctrine  of  revelation  to  the  "  touchstone"  of  reason,  he 
will  gain  nothing.     Once  more,  however,  let  us  hear  him 
on  this  point.     He  seems  to  think  the  question  decided  by 
that  saying  of  St.  Paul,  "  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded 
in  his  own  mind."     Without  supposing  it  necessary  to 
make  any  alteration  in  the  translation,  may  it  not  be  asked, 
How  does  it  appear  from  hence,  that  the  apostle  teaches 
the  Corinthians  to  try  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  by  the 
"touchstone"  of  human  reason?  or  that  he  would  have 
the  full  persuasion  which  he  recommends,  to  be  the  result 
ofargumentation,rather  than  of  a  more  perfect  knowledge 
of  what  is  required  by  the  word  of  God?     While  Mr.  G. 
answers  this  question,  we  proceed  to  remark  that    St. 
Paul  is  speaking  of  the  observance  of  Jewish  festivals  ; 
a  point  this,  on  which  revelation  only  could  decide.     And 
the  apostle  chose  rather  to  inculcate  brotherly  affection 
than  to  encounter  the  harmless  prejudices  of  either  of  the 
parties  in  this  dispute.    Some  persons,  in  conformity  with 
the  context,  make  a  slight  alteration  in  the  translation,  and 
read  the  whole  passage  thus  :  "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest 
another  man's  servant  ?  to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or 
falleth.     Yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up ;  for  God  is  able  to 
make   him    stand.     One   man  esteemeth  one  day  above 
another  ^.another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.     Let  every 

3 


26  BKA90N   NOT   THE    TEST   OF   THE 

one  (ev  TO  iSiu  VOL  '!T?.7]po(f>oi>eiadu^  abound  in  his  (fwn 
sense;"  for  it  is  a  matter  of  pure  indifference.  "He 
that  regardeth  the  day  regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord ;  and 
he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth  not 
Tegard  it,"  Rom.  xiv,  4-6. 

The  fallacy  of  this  common  Socinian  argument  lies  in 
the  confusion  of  the  terms.  Mr.  G.  has  heaped  together 
the  words  "judge"  and  "rule,"  "umpire"  and  "  touch' 
stone,"  and  fancies  that  because  he  has  proved  reason  ta 
be  the  proper  "judge,"  he  has  equally  proved  that,  in  op- 
position to  the  divine  testimony,  reason  is  also  the 
"  touchstone"  of  truth.  Such  is  the  infallibility  of  Soci- 
nian reason ! 

It  is  now  our  turn  to  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  sacred 
writers.  The  following  citations  will  be  more  than  enough 
to  prove  that  in  matters  of  religion  mere  human  wisdom 
is  folly  ;  that  it  is  an  obstacle  to  the  wisdom  which  cometh 
from  above ;  that  the  wisdom  taught  by  reason  ought  to 
give  place  to  that  which  is  taught  by  revelation  ;  and  that 
to  mingle  human  wisdom  with  the  wisdom  of  God,  is  like 
blending  darkness  with  hght,  or  poison  with  our  food. 

"  Christ  sent  me  to  preach  the  gospel ;  not  with  wis- 
dom of  words,  lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  of 
none  effect.  For  the  preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them 
that  perish,  foolishness;  but  unto  us  who  are  saved,  it 
is  the  power  of  God.  For  it  is  written,  I  will  destroy  the 
wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  will  bring  to  nothing  the  under- 
standing of  the  prudent.  Where  is  the  wise  ?  where  is 
the  scribe  ?  where  is  the  disputer  of  this  world  ?  Hath  not 
God  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world  ?  For  after 
that,  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  the  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God,  it  pleased  God,  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching, 
to  save  them  that  believe.  For  the  Jews  retjuire  a  sign, 
and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom  ;  but  we  preach  Christ 
crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbUng  block,  and  unto 
the  Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  which  are  called, 
both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the 
wisdom  of  God.  Because  the  foolishness  of  God  is 
wiser  than  men ;  and  the  weakness  of  God  is  stronger 
than  men.  For  ye  see  your  calling,  brethren,  how  that 
not  many  wise  men  after  the  flesh  ;  but  God  hath  chosen 
the  foolish  things  of  the  world,  to  confound  the  wise," 


DOCTRINES   OF    REVELATION.  27 

« tfeit  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence.     Bat  of  him 
are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wis- 
dom, Arc,  that  according  as  it  is  written,  He  that  glorieth, 
let  him  glory  in  the  Lord.     And  I,  brethren,  when  I  came 
to  you,  came  not  with  excellency  of  speech,  or  df  wis- 
dom, declaring  unto  you  the  testimony  of  God.     For  I 
determined  not  to  know  any  thing  among  you,  save  Jesus 
Christ,  and  him  crucified.       And  my   speech   and   my 
preaching  was  not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom, 
but  in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power.     That 
your  faith  should  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in 
the  power  of  God.     Howbeit,  we  speak  wisdom  among 
them  that  are  perfect,  yet  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world, 
nor  of  the  princes  of  this  world,  that  come  to  naught. 
But  we  speak  the  wisdom  of  God,  in  a  mystery,  even  the 
hidden  wisdom,  which  God  ordained  before  the  world  unto 
our  glory ;  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world  knew  : 
for  had  they  known  it,  they  would  not  have  crucified  the 
Lord  of  glory.  But  as  it  is  written,  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor 
ear  heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the 
things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him. 
But  God  hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by  his  Spirit.     The 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Now  we  have  received,  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the 
Spirit  which  is  of  God ;  that  we  might  know  the  things  that 
are  freely  given  to  us  of  God.     Which  things  also  we 
speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth ; 
but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth ;  comparing  spiritual 
things  with  spiritual.     But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  for  they  are  foolishness 
unto  him,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned.     For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of 
the  Lord ;  that  he  may  instruct  him  1    But  we  have  the 
mind  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  i,  ii.     "  Do  not  err,  my  beloved 
brethren.     Every   good   gift,   and  every  perfect  gift   is 
from  above,  and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights. 
Wherefore,  my  beloved  brethren,  let  every  man  be  swift  to 
hear,  slow  to  speak,"  James  i,  16,  17,  19.     "Let  no  man 
deceive  himself.     If  any  man  among  you  seemeth  to  be 
wise  in  this  world,  let  him  become  a  fool  that  he  may 
be  wise.     For  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness 
u'ith  God;  for  it  is  written,  He  taketh  the  wise  in  their 


28  REASON  NOT  THE  TEST  OF  THE 

own  craftiness.  And  again,  The  Lord  knoweth  the 
thoughts  of  the  wise  that  they  are  vain.  Therefore  let 
no  man  glory  in  men,"  1  Cor.  iii,  18-21.  "Let  God  he 
true,  but  every  man  a  liar  :  as  it  is  written,  That  thou 
mightest  be  justified  in  thy  sayings,  and  mightest  over- 
come when  thou  art  judged,"  Rom.  iii,  4.  "To  the  law, 
and  to  the  testimony :  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this 
word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them,"  Isa.  viii, 
20.  "  Foolish  and  unlearned  questions  avoid,  knowing 
that  they  do  gender  strifes,"  2  Tim.  ii,  23.  "  Charge 
them  before  the  Lord,  that  they  strive  not  about  words  to 
no  profit,  but  to  the  subverting  of  the  hearers.  Study  to 
show  thyself  approved  unto  God,  a  workman  that  needeth 
not  to  be  ashamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth. 
But  shun  profane  and  vain  babblings,  for  they  will  increase 
unto  more  ungodliness.  And  their  word  will  eat  as  doth 
a  canker,"  2  Tim.  ii,  14-17.  "Charge  some  that  they 
teach  no  other  doctrine,"  1  Tim.  i,  3.  "  If  any  man 
teach  otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words, 
even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doc- 
trine which  is  according  to  godliness,  he  is  proud,  know- 
ing nothing,  but  doting  about  questions,  and  strifes  of 
words,  whereof  come  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  cor- 
rupt minds  and  destitute  of  the  truth  :  from  such  withdraw 
thyself,"  1  Tim.  vi,  3-5.  "O  Timothy,  keep  that  which 
is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding  profane  and  vain  bab- 
blings, and  oppositions  of  science,  falsely  so  called,  which 
some  professing,  have  erred  concerning  the  faith,"  1  Tim. 
vi,  20.  "  Because  that  when  they  knew  God  they  glorified 
him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful,  but  became  vain 
in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foohsh  heart  was  darkened ; 
professing  themselves  to  be  wise  they  became  fools," 
Rom.  i,  21,  22.  "For  I  would  that  ye  knew  what  great 
conflict  I  have  for  you,  and  for  them  atXaodicea,  and  for 
as  many  as  have  not  seen  my  face  in  the  flesh ;  that  their 
hearts  may  be  comforted,  being  knit  together  in  love» 
and  unto  all  riches  of  the  full  assurance  of  understanding, 
to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the 
Father,  and  of  Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures 
,of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  And  this  I  say,  lest  any  man 
should  beguile  you  with  enticing  words.  For  though  I 
be  absent  in  the  flesh,  yet  am  I  with  you  in  the  spirit, 


DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION.  29 

joying  and  beholding  your  order,  and  the  steadfastness  of 
your  faith  in  Christ.  As  ye  have  therefore  received 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Lord,  so  walk  ye  in  him ;  rooted  and  built 
up  in  him,  and  established  in  the  faith,  as  ye  hajie  been 
taught,  abounding  therein  with  thanksgiving.  Beware  lest 
any  man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after 
the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and 
not  after  Christ,"  Col.  ii,  1-8.  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is 
perfect,  converting  the  soul ;  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is 
sure,  making  wise  the  simple ;  the  statutes  of  the  Lord 
are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart ;  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes  ;  the  judgments  of  the 
Lord  are  true  and  righteous  altogether,"  Psa.  xix,  7-9. 
"  Mine  heart  within  me  is  broken  because  of  the  prophets  ; 
all  my  bones  shake  ;  I  am  like  a  drunken  man,  and  like  a 
man  whom  wine  hath  overcome,  because  of  the  Lord,  and 
because  of  the  words  of  his  holiness.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  Hearken  not  unto  the  words  of  the  prophets 
that  prophesy  unto  you ;  they  make  you  vain  ;  they  speak 
a  vision  of  their  own  heart,  and  not  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Lord.  They  say  still  unto  them  that  despise  me.  The 
Lord  hath  said  ye  shall  have  peace ;  and  they  say  unto 
every  one  that  walketh  after  the  imagination  of  his  own 
heart,  No  evil  shall  come  upon  you.  For  who  hath  stood 
in  the  counsel  of  the  Lord,  and  hath  perceived  and  heard 
his  word?  who  hath  marked  his  word,  and  heard  it?  I 
have  not  sent  these  prophets,  yet  they  ran ;  I  have  not 
spoken  to  them,  yet  they  prophesied.  But  if  they  had 
stood  in  my  counsel,  and  had  caused  my  people  to  hear 
my  words,  then  they  should  have  turned  them  from  their 
evil  way,  and  from  the  evil  of  their  doings.  I  have  heard 
what  the  prophets  said  that  prophesy  lies  in  my  name, 
saying,  I  have  dreamed,  I  have  dreamed.  How  long  shall 
this  be  in  the  hearts  of  the  prophets  that  prophesy  lies  ? 
yea,  they  are  prophets  of  the  deceit  of  their,  own  heart. 
The  prophet  that  hath  a  dream,  let  him  tell  a  dream ;  and 
he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  speak  my  w'ord  faithfully. 
What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat  ?  saith  the  Lord :  Is  not 
my  word  like  as  a  fire  ?  saith  the  Lord  ;  and  like  a  ham- 
mer that  breaketh  the  rocks  in  pieces,"  Jer.  xxiii,  9,  &c. 
"  For  I  tgstify  unto  every  man  that  heareth  the  words  of  the 
prophecy  of  this  book,    If  any  man  shall  add  unto  these 

3* 


30  REASON   NOT   THE    TEST   OP  THE 

things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are 
written  in  this  book  ;  and  if  any  man  shall  take  awav  from 
the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take 
away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy 
city,  and  from  the  things  which  are  written  in  this  book," 
Rev.  xxii,  18,  19. 

The  language  of  these  passages  is  so  far  from  being 
equivocal,  that  the  reader,  without  the  assistance  of  a  com- 
mentator, will  easily  understand  them,  and  make  the  proper 
application. 

How  much  cause  there  is  for  these  warnings,  has  been 
exemplified  from  the  times  of  the  apostles  to  the  present. 
"  The  Christian  Church  was  scarcely  formed  when  in  dif- 
ferent places  there  started  up  certain  pretended  leformers, 
who,  not  satisfied  with  the  simplicity  of  that  religion  which 
was  taught  by  the  apostles,  set  up  a  new  religion  drawn 
from  their  own  licentious  imaginations.  Several  of  these 
are  mentioned  by  the  apostles,  such  as  Hymenseus  and 
Alexander.  The  influence  of  these  new  teachers  was  but 
inconsiderable  at  first.  During  the  lives  of  the  apostles 
their  attempts  toward  the  perversion  of  Christianity  were 
attended  with  little  success.  They,  however,  acquired 
credit  and  strength  by  degrees;  and  even  from  the  first 
dawn  of  the  gospel  laid  imperceptibly  the  foundation  of 
those  sects  which  produced  afterward  such  trouble  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

"  Among  the  various  sects  that  troubled  the  Christian 
Church,  the  leading  one  was  that  of  the  Gnostics.  These 
self-sufficient  philosophers  boasted  of  their  being  able  to 
restore  mankind  to  the  knowledge  (gnosis)  of  the  supreme 
Being,  which  had  been  lost  in  the  world.  Under  tlie  gene- 
ral appellation  of  Gnostics  are  comprehended  all  those 
who,  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  corrupted  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel  by  a  profane  mixtyre  of  (he  tenets  of 
the  oriental  philosophy  Avith  its  divine  truths."  (Mosheim, 
book  i,  part  ii,  chap,  v.)  From  these  "knowing  ones" 
arose,  in  the  first  and  second  century,  a  rich  harvest  of 
heretics  and  heresies,  of  which,  not  to  mention  them  in 
detail,  the  reader  may  find  an  ample  account  in  the  first 
volume  of  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History.  A  few 
.specimens  would  show  that  the  apostles  acted  wisely 
when  they  cautioned  their  disciples  against  every  thing 


DOCTRINES   OF   REVELATION.  31 

destructive  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  that  they 
were  not  mistaken  in  the  results  of  this  unnatural  coali- 
tion of  philosophy  and  revelation  which  they  predicted. 
"  There  is  no  observation  capable  of  fuller  proof,  thdtn  that 
religion,  through  all  ages  of  the  Christian  Church,  was 
more  or  less  pure  according  to  the  alloy  of  philosophy  or 
human  reason  mixed  up  with  it.  There  were  scarcely  a 
heresy  in  the  primitive  church  that  was  not  imbibed  from 
Plato's  academy,  Zeno's  portico,  or  some  vain  reasonings 
of  the  pagan  wise  men.  In  latter  ages  the  schoolmen 
rejected  Plato,  and  exalted  Aristotle  into  the  chair  of 
Christ,  says  Tilenus,  (Til.  Syniagm.,  part  ii,  disp.  16, 
thes.  31,)  esteeming  him  the  god  of  wisdom,  who  could 
not  err.  And  the  controversy  long  subsisted  to  which  of 
them  an  appeal  lay  for  the  determination  of  truth.  Such 
is  the  vain  arrogance  of  human  reason,  as  to  have  puffed  up 
some  in  every  age  to  promise  they  would  show  us  the  truth 
by  the  mere  light  of  it,  and  maintain  it  as  the  only  rule  of 
faith. '  Philosophy  and  vain  deceit'  have  always  proved  high- 
ly injurious  to  the  purity  of  religion,  and  the  great  objects 
of  faith  which  are  supernaturally  revealed."  [Dr.  Ellis.) 

Since  philosophy  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  sincere 
and  devout  Christians,  who  valued  above  all  learning  "  the 
faith  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  "  contended"  for  that 
faith  as  the  truest  wisdom,  it  has  been  much  reformed. 
But  so  long  as  it  is  human  wisdom,  it  will  never  be  fit  to 
take  the  lead  of  revelation.  Modern  philosophers,  as  well 
as  those  of  antiquity,  whenever  they  attempt  to  model 
their  creed  by  the  rule  of  their  reason,  show  themselves 
capable  of  the  greatest  absurdities.  With  our  Unitarian 
divines,  (as  they  are  pleased  exclusively  to  denominate 
themselves,)  it  is  a  first  principle  that  "reason  directs  to 
whatever  is  true  in  speculation."  To  set  reason  free  from 
the  fetters  of  education,  they  have  renounced  the  doctrine 
of  human  depravity,  and  of  eternal  punishment.  Thus 
inspired  with  unlimited  confidence  in  their  own  under- 
standing, and  divested  of  all  apprehension  of  eternal  con- 
sequences, they  are  "  induced  to  reason  cautiously  and 
frequently,  and  learn  to  reason  well."  So  says  one  of 
themselves.*     And  what  can  be  more  reasonably  expected 

*  Mr.  'Jlimes  Yates,  in  a  sermon  on  the  grounds  of  Unitarian 
dissent,  preached  at  Glasgow,  pp.  16,  17,  22,23. 


32         REASON  NOT  THE  TEST  OF  THE 

from  them  than  that  they  should  all  reason  alike  ?  But 
their  one,  perfect,  infallible,  and  unchangeable  guide, 
which  "  directs  to  whatever  is  true  in  speculation,"  is  far 
from  leading  them  all  in  the  same  path.  A  few  lines  from 
the  author  just  mentioned  will  amply  illustrate  their  agree- 
ments and  their  differences, 

"  In  order  to  convey  a  just  idea  of  the  constitution  of 
Unitarian  societies,  it  is  necessary  to  premise,  tliat,  while 
we  are  united  by  a  iew  great  principles,  there  are  nume- 
rous topics  of  inferior  consequence  respecting  which  we 
differ  in  opinion  among  ourselves.  All  Unitarians  agree 
in  denying  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  eternal  God ;  and 
that  he  is  the  object  of  religious  worship.  Some  of  them, 
however,  believe  that  he  was  employed,  as  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  the  Deity,  to  create  the  material  world, 
though  not  possessed  of  underived  wisdom  aird  indepen- 
dent power  :  others  believe  only  in  his  pre-existence. 
Some  go  still  farther,  maintaining  that  he  was  simply  a 
human  being,  but  conceived  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin 
according  to  the  introductory  chapters  of  Matthew  and 
Luke's  gospels :  others  see  reason  to  believe  that  those 
chapters  are  interpolations,  and  therefore  deny  the  doc- 
trine of  the  miraculous  conception.  In  like  manner  all 
Unitarians  agree  that  the  deatii  of  Christ  was  an  incal- 
culable  blessing  to  mankind  :  some,  however,  do  not  pre- 
sume to  determine  the  exact  manner  in  which  it  conduces 
to  the  good  of  men,  while  others  think  that  the  mode  of  its 
beneficial  operation  may  be  distinctly  pointed  out ;  but 
all  reject  the  Trinitarian  doctrines  of  satisfaction  and 
vicarious  atonement,  believing,  not  that  Jesus  saves  his 
followers  from  the  everlasting  misery  to  which  they  are 
supposed  to  have  been  doomed  in  consequence  of  the  sin 
of  their  first  parents,  but  that  he  saves  them,  by  the  force 
of  his  doctrines,  precepts,  and  examplo,  from  vice,  igno- 
rance, and  superstition,  and  from  the  misery  which  is  their 
natural  result.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  is  a  subject  on 
which  we  entertain  various  ojiinions  ;  some  of  us  practise 
the  baptism  of  infants,  others  of  adults,  and  some  think 
that  the  use  of  water  may  be  omitted  entirely.  Concern- 
ing the  question  of  an  intormc-diate  state,  and  the  phifoso- 
■phical  doctrines  of  materialism  and  necessity,  we  either 
remain  in  doubt  or  espouse  oppoaite  sides.     On  these  and 


DOCTRINES    OF    REVELATION.  33 

other  points,  which  have  been  debated  by  orthodox  Chris- 
tians  with  rancorous  animosity,  we  agree  to  differ."  (Mr. 
Yates'  Sermon,  pp.  13-15.)  ^. 

Mr.  Yates  ought  to  have  the  thanks  of  the  Christian 
woi'ld  for  speaking  the  truth.  This  curious  passage  shows 
that  reason,  as  well  as  nature,  has  her  frolics.  The  "  few 
great  principles"  in  which  the  Unitarians  agree,  Mr.  Y. 
has  carefully  laid  down  ;  viz.,  1.  "  The  free  and  unbiassed 
use  of  the  understanding  on  religious  subjects."  2. 
"  They  ought  to  offer  prayer  and  adoration  to  God,  the 
Father,  only."  3.  "  They  regard  holiness  of  heart,  and 
excellence  of  conduct,  as  the  only  means  of  obtaining 
salvation." 

These  three  great  Unitarian  principles  will  not  prevent 
the  effect  of  our  observations  on  the  passage  which  we 
have  cited. 

There  is  one  part  of  this  exposition  of  Unitarianism  on 
which  we  may  properly  enough  remark  before  we  enter 
into  the  heart  of  it.  Mr.  Y.  has  shown  that  his  friends 
are  not  yet  agreed  on  "  the  philosophical  doctrines  of  mate- 
rialism and  necessity."  But  ought  they  not  to  know  from 
Avhence  they  take  their  departure,  when  they  set  out  on 
their  voyage  of  discovery  ?  When  Thales,  while  contem- 
plating  the  stars,  fell  into  a  ditch,  how,  said  a  woman, 
should  you  know  what  passes  in  the  heavens  when  you 
see  not  what  is  just  at  your  feet?  Again:  ought  they 
not  to  determine  whether  or  not  there  is  a  spirit  in  them, 
before  they  assure  themselves  that  they  can  without  assist, 
ance  from  above  find  out  God,  who  is  a  Spirit  ?  An 
apostle  thought  that  none  but  the  spirit  of  a  man  can  know 
what  is  in  man.  But  they  think  that,  without  a  spirit, 
they  can  know  the  things  of  God.  If  all  the  phenomena 
of  perception,  reason,  memory,  will,  and  various  aftections, 
joined  with  the  unequivocal  and  uniform  testimony  of 
divine  revelation,  cannot  assure  a  Unitarian  that  he  has 
a  spirit  distinct  from  his  body,  how  can  his  reason  prove 
to  itself  that  there  is  a  God  who  is  a  Spirit  ?  Where  then 
is  the  reason,  which  is  "  a  partial  revelation  of  God,  his 
nature,  attributes,  and  will  ?"  If  a  man's  reason  be  not 
satisfied  on  this  point,  how  can  he  on  Socinian  principles 
believe  the  testimony  of  a  revelation  which  contradicts  his 
reason  ?     Or,  if  a  contradiction  be  not  admitted,  how  can 


34  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    THE 

his  reason  be  a  fit  rule  by  which  to  judge  whether  that 
doctrine  of  revelation  be  true  ?  This  one  concession  is 
subversive  of  the  whole  fabric  of  Socinianism,  which  is 
like  a  kingdom  divided  against  itself.  Once  more  :  ought 
they  not  to  be  assured  that  their  (what  name  should  it 
have  ?)  spirit  is  free,  has  liberty,  and  is  not  bound  down 
by  the  chains  of  irresistible  necessity,  before  they  assure 
themselves  that  they  are  entering  on  a  free  inquiry  ! 

Leaving  them  to  consider  how  far  it  is  proper  to  begin 
their  reasonings  where  they  now  end  them,  let  us  examine 
the  points  in  which  they  agree,  and  those  in  which  they 
differ. 

1.  Their  agreement  is  all  in  negatives.  They  are  only 
agreed  about  what  is  not.  They  agree  in  denying  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  eternal  God,  or  the  object  .of  religious 
worship  ;  and  in  rejecting  the  doctrines  of  satisfaction  and 
vicarious  atonement,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  and  everlasting  punishment.  That  is,  they  agree  in 
renouncing  these  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 

2.  But  in  things  positive,  though  led  by  the  same  infal- 
lible guide,  "  which  directs  to  whatever  is  true  in  specu- 
lation," they  agree  not  at  all.  They  are  not  agreed  whe- 
ther  Jesus  Christ  was  the  "  instrumental"  Creator  of  the 
world,  or  a  mere  man.  They  are  not  agreed  in  what 
manner  the  world  is  benefited  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
They  are  not  agreed  whether  baptism,  (i.  e.,  washing,) 
should  be  administered  with  or  without  water !  Rmim  tenea- 
tis  1  They  are  not  agreed  whether  they  have  an  immortal 
soul ;  or  whether  they  have  any  soul  at  all ;  whetlior  they 
are  walking  in  glorious  liberty,  or  are  bound  in  the  adaman- 
tine chains  of  inexorable  necessity  !  Such  are  the  consist, 
cncies  of  all-searching,  all-discerning,  all-knowing  reason  ! 
When  men,  instead  of  ascending  to  heaven  on  a  ladder  let 
down  from  above,  agree  to  build  a  towel  of  which  the  foun- 
dation shall  be  on  earth,  and  the  summit  shall  reach  the 
skies,  no  wonder  that  God  confounds  their  language  ! 

To  bring  to  light  this  disagreement  among  tliemselves, 
was  the  design  with  which  Mr.  Yates  was  cited.  The 
citation  is  intended  to  show,  .first,  that  as  the  heathen 
philosophers,  without  the  aid  of  revelation,  could  discover 
and  detect  error,  but  could  not  find  out  truth,  or  agree 
among  themselves  on  that  great  question.  What  is  truth? 


DOCTHII^ES    OF   REVELATION.  35 

and  therefore  could  never  enlighten  the  world  by  their  in- 
structions  ;  so,  when  philosophical  divines  bring  the  doc- 
trines of  revelation  to  the  test  of  human  reason,  anji  make 
their  own  conceptions  the  rule  by  which  they  are  to  judge, 
they  can  easily  agree  to  discard  many  points  of  doctrine 
which  in  their  own  opinion  ought  not  to  be  taught,  because 
they  are  false,  but  have  among  themselves  no  positive  re- 
vealed truth  on  which  they  are  agreed,  and  therefore  are 
as  unfit  to  instruct  mankind  as  their  elder  brethren  :  and, 
secondly,  that  as  by  the  philosophy  which  some  of  the 
first  Christian  teachers  adopted,  Christianity  was  neutral- 
ized; so  by  the  negative  and  skeptical  philosophy  of  mo- 
dern teachers,  Christianity  is  destroyed.  It  is  true,  indeed, 
while  the  Socinians  differ  among  themselves  in  matters 
which  they  deem  of  "  inferior  importance,"  they  agree  in 
"a  few  great  principles;"  and  it  is  equally  true,  that 
Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate  "  agreed  to  differ"  in  smaller 
matters,  but  to  unite  in  the  important  affair  of  "  cruci- 
fying the  Lord  of  glory." 

If,  then,  for  creatures  of  such  acknowledged  ignorance 
to  profess  themselves  able  to  discover  the  truths  of  God, 
is  arrogance  ;  to  determine  them  by  their  own  reason,  is 
profaneness.  To  do  either  the  one  or  the  other  is  more 
than  man  is  fitted  for,  or  called  to ;  and  none  has  attempted 
it  who  has  not  failed.  The  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
it  is  agreed  on  both  sides,  is  a  revelation  from  God.  It 
is  suited,  especially  in  those  parts  which  most  imme- 
diately concern  us,  to  the  capacity  of  the  meanest. 
•'  To  the  poor,"  who  are  generally  illiterate,  "  the  gospel 
is  preached  ;"  yet  these  "  God  has  chosen,  rich  in  faith." 
Even  "  a  child  may  know  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  be 
made  wise  unto  salvation."  It  is  not  a  veil  thrown  over 
the  truth  by  forced  allegories  and  strained  metaphors  ;  but 
a  revelation  of  the  truth,  delivered  in  proper  terms,  where 
proper  terms  are  most  intelligible  ;  and  in  which  figures 
are  used  only  where  figures  are  absolutely  necessary,  or 
will  give  it  greater  perspicuity  and  force.  "  We  use," 
says  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  great  plainness  of  speech :  and 
not  as  Moses,  which  put  a  veil  over  his  face."  "  But  have 
renounced  the  hidden  things  of  dishonesty,  not  walking  in 
craftiness,  nor  handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully  ;  but 
by  manifestation  of  the  truth  commending  ourselves  to 


86  REASON   NOT    THE    TEST,    ETC. 

every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God.  But  if  our 
gospel  be  hid,  (veiled,)  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost :  in 
whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
them  which  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  gos- 
pel of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of ,  God,  should  shine  unto 
them,"  2  Cor.  iii,  12,  13;  iv,  2-4. 

It  is  true,  the  gospel  has  its  mysteries.  It  has  its  mys* 
teries  revealed :  truths  which  were  once  kept  secret,  "  but 
now  are  made  manifest."  These  are  properly  mysteries 
no  longer,  and  are  called  so  only  with  respect  to  what 
they  once  were.  It  has  its  mysteries  yet  unrevealed. 
There  are  things  which  we  "  know  not  now ;  but  shall 
know  hereafter."  And  it  has  its  mysteries  imperfectly 
revealed  :  revealed  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  comprehend  a 
revelation  of  them.  These  are  mysteries  stilt  "  We  see 
them  through  a  glass  darkly  :"  "  we  know  them  but  in  part," 
1  Cor.  xiii,  12.  The  gospel  does  not  in  in  every  case 
enable  us  to  answer  those  questions, — why?  how?  where- 
fore? but  it  teaches  us  to  submit  our  understandings  to 
the  wisdom  of  God,  and  our  hearts  to  his  will.  How  can 
a  revelation  of  the  being,  perfections,  and  ways  of  the  in- 
finite God,  be  made  to  a  finite  creature,  without  involving 
mysteries  ?  That  which  is  infinite  cannot  be  comprehend- 
ed by  that  which  is  finite.  To  suppose  that  it  could,  is  to 
suppose  that  cither  the  former  is  no  longer  infinite,  or  the 
latter  is  no  longer  finite.  In  whatever  measure,  therefore, 
God  is  made  known  to  us,  that  which  is  known  to  us  must 
imply  something  which  is  unknown,  that  is  a  mystery.  It 
is  the  part  of  Christian  humility  to  acknowledge  that  "  se- 
cret things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God  ;"  and  it  is  the 
part  of  Christian  docility  to  receive  with  meekness  "  those 
things  which  are  revealed,"  as  belonging  "  to  us  and  to 
our  children  for  ever,"  Deut.  xxix,  29. 

In  an  examination,  like  the  present,  of  those  things 
which  once  were  mysteries,  and  of  those  which  are  now 
"  in  part"  revealed,  while  wo  abstain  from  all  vain  and 
curious  inquiries  into  the  why,  the  how,  and  the  wherefore, 
which  are  not  revealed  ;  our  business  is,  not  to  suppose 
that  in  the  imaginary  deductions  of  human  reason  wehavc 
an  infallible  standard  of  judgment  already  fixed, — which 
is  perfectly  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  those  things  hav- 
ing been,  or  being  now,  mysteries ;  but  to  sit,  w  ithout  pre- 


TrtE    EXIStllNCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  87 

jiodice  or  prepossession,  at  the  feet  of  Christ  and  of  his 
apostles,  and  to  learn  from  them  what  are  "  the  principal 
doctrines  of  Christianity."  ^ 


CHAPTER  III. 

Of  the  Existence  of  the  Devil. 

Though  the  mere  abstract,  philosophical  question  of  the 
existence  of  the  devil,  is  rather  curious  than  useful,  yet 
to  know  that  we  have  an  invisible  and  inveterate  foe,  who 
makes  the  seduction  of  mankind  his  business,  and  their 
destruction  his  aim,  is  of  great  importance. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  prove  that  there  is  an  omnipre- 
sent, omniscient,  omnipotent,  prescient,  and  infinitely 
malicious  fiend.  {Led.  voL  i,  pp.  18,  73,  74,  84,  91,  92, 
102.)  Mr.  G.,  for  aught  we  know,  may  have  heard  igno- 
rant persons  speak  as  if  there  were  ;  and  it  must  be  con- 
fessed  that  he  has  made  the  best  use  of  their  misrepresenta- 
tions. His  attack  on  this  <'  castle  in  the  air"  has  afforded 
him  a  triumph  to  which  he  is  heartily  welcome.  If  he  can 
prove  nothing  else,  he  can  prove  that  there  is  not  an  in- 
finite devil.  But  all  his  arguments  on  this  topic  are  mere 
waste  of  words.  He  has  manufactured  a  man  out  of  the 
straw  of  vulgar  inaccuracy,  and  has  innocently  set  it  on 
fire.  Leaving  him  to  warm  himself  by  the  flame  which 
he  has  kindled,  we  proceed  to  point  out  what  we  have 
learned  on  this  subject  from  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

By  those  divine  oracles  we  are  taught  that  there  are 
beings  celestial  as  well  as  terrestrial.  He  who  created 
"  heaven"  and  "  earth,"  created  all  things  "  in"  them, 
"  visible  and  invisible,"  even  "  thrones,  dominions,  prin- 
cipalities, and  powers,"  Col.  i,  16.  These  invisible  in- 
habitants of  heaven  are  intelligent  beings  ;  for  they  "  do 
always  behold  the  face  of  the  Father  which  is  in  heaven," 
Matt,  xviii,  10:  and  moral  agents;  for  they  not  only 
know,  but  do  his  will,  and  are  set  forth  as  an  example  to 
us,  who  are  taught  to  pray  that  his  "  will  may  be  done 
on  eartii,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven."  They  are  spiritual 
substances :  not  clothed  with  flesh  like  us ;  for  "  he 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,"  Heb.  i,  7. 

4 


38  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   THE    DKVIL. 

These  celestial  spirits  are  called  angels  or  messengersr. 
because  they  have  been  known  to  mankind  chiefly  in  the 
character  of  messengers  from  God. 

From  St,  Peter  and  St.  Jude  we  learn  that  some  of 
these  inhabitants  of  heaven  "  abode  not  in  the  truth,"  but 
fell  from  their  rectitude  and  bliss.  To  disturb  our  enjoy- 
ment of  the  testimony  of  St.  Jude,  Mr.  G.  has  given  us  a 
specimen  of  Socinian  reasoning.  "  I  cannot  enter  into  a 
critical  explanation  of  every  passage.  I  will  refer  you  to 
Simpson's  Essay  on  the  words  Satan  and  Devil,  where 
the  subject  is  thoroughly  investigated.  Suffice  it  now  to 
say  that  it  refers  to  human  beings,  and  the  punishment 
temporal.  It  relates  to  the  journey  of  the  Israelites 
through  the  wilderness,  to  their  rebellion  and  their  sub- 
sequent punishment."   (Vol.  i,  p.  73.) 

Let  us  hear  by  what  means  Mr.  Simpson  has  perverted 
the  sense  of  the  words  of  the  apostle.  In  the  tirst  place, 
he  has  taken  the  utmost  freedom  in  giving  a  new  version 
of  the  passage.  We  shall  not,  however,  object  to  this  ; 
except  in  the  case  of  one  word,  viz.,  auhoic,  which  our 
translators  have  properly  rendered  "  everlasting."  It  is 
from  aei,  always,  and  is  the  word  which  St.  Paul  uses  in 
Rom.  i,  20,  where  again  it  is,  and  must  be,  rendered 
"  eternal  :"  ("  eternal  power  and  godhead.")  It  is  used 
by  Ignatius,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Magnesians,  (sec.  8,)  to 
point  out  the  eternity  of  Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  denomi- 
nates, with  respect  to  God,  avrov  Xoyoc  au^ioc,  his  eternal 
Word.  But  Mr.  S.,  to  get  rid  of  a  word  which  indicates 
eternal,  instead  of  temporal  punishment,  has  translated  it 
in  connection  with  the  word  ihofioic,  without  assigning  any 
reason,  and  contrary  to  all  authority,  "  the  chains  of 
Hades."     In  tliis  case,  then,  we  have  a  false  translation. 

With  this  exception,  the  utmost  freedom  of  translation 
being  allowed,  the  passage  stands  thus : — "  And  the  (an- 
gels, or)  messengers,  who  watclied  not  over  their  princi- 
pality,  but  deserted  their  proper  station,  he  hath  reserved 
until  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,  in  everlasting  chains, 
under  darkness."  Such,  with  the  exception  which  we 
have  noted,  is  Mr.  S.'s  translation,  on  which  Me  re- 
mark : — 

1.  That  the  passage  is  still  perfectly  applicable  to  our 
purpose. 


THE    EXrSTJSNCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  39 

2.  That  the  application  of  it  to  Mr.  G.'s  purpose  is  be- 
yond all  measure  forced.  (1.)  How  are  the  spies  said  to 
be  messengers  ?  Tlie  word  ayyeXog  means  a  me^genger 
who  bears  tidings.  But  the  spies  were  not  sent  with  any 
message,  news,  or  tidings.  They  were  sent  to  spy  out  the 
land.  (2.)  Was  it  the  sin  of  the  spies  that  they  did  not 
watch  over  their  principality,  but  deserted  their  proper 
station  ?  Was  it  not  that  they  brought  an  evil  report  of  the 
land?  (3.)  Is  being  reserved  in  chains  to  the  judgment 
of  the  great  day,  and  in  everlasting  chains,  merely  a  "  tem- 
poral punishment?"  (4.)  How  can  the  sin  of  the  spies 
refer  to  the  journey  of  the  Israelites  through  the  wilder- 
ness, to  their  rebellion  and  their  subsequent  punishment? 

Thus,  after  the  utmost  latitude  is  allowed  to  Mr.  G.  in 
his  translation,  he  is  obliged  to  make  a  most  arbitrary  ap- 
plication of  the  passage,  and  misses  the  mark  at  last. 
The  passage  from  St.  Peter's  epistle  remains  untouched, 
for  it  would  not  admit  of  a  similar  application,  and  is 
therefore  fully  in  our  possession.  It  stands  thus  :  "  God 
spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to 
hell,  and  delivei-ed  them  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be 
reserved  unto  judgment,"  2  Pet.  ii,  4. 

It  is  probable  that  the  sin  of  these  angelic  beings  was 
pride.  Hence  St.  Paul  directs  that  a  bishop  should  not 
be  "  a  novice,  (-or  young  convert,)  lest  being  lifted  up  with 
pride,  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of  the  devil,"  1  Tim. 
iii,  6.  How  that  pride  was  manifested,  is  not  explained. 
But  there  may  possibly  be  an  allusion  to  their  sin  in  that 
passage  :  "  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  O  Lucifer, 
son  of  the  morning  !  how  art  thou  cut  down  to  the  ground, 
which  didst  weaken  the  nations  !  For  thou  hast  said  in  thine 
heart,  I  will  ascend  into  heaven,  I  will  exalt  my  throne 
above  the  stars  of  God  :  I  will  sit  also  upon  the  mount  of 
the  congregation,  in  the  sides  of  the  north  :  I  will  ascend 
above  the  heights  of  tlie  clouds :  I  will  be  like  the  Most 
High,"  laa.  xiv,  12-14. 

At  the  time  of  our  Lord's  appearance,  these  fallen  spi- 
rits  were  permitted,  in  many  instances,  to  take  possession 
of  the  bodies  of  mankind.  Mr.  G.  readily  grants  "  that 
it  was  a  common  opinion  among  all  the  heathen  nations, 
that  the"*spirits  of  departed  men  and  heroes  were  permitted, 
after  their  death,  to  enter  the  bodies  of  human  beings." 


40  THE    BXISTENCE    O*"    THE    DEVIL* 

(Vol.  i,  p.  73.)  A  similar  notion,  he  admits,  obtainecJ 
among  the  Jews,  who,  he  says,  "  gave  the  name  of  demons 
to  those  spirits  which  were  permitted  to  enter  the  human 
frame  to  do  evil."  (Vol.  i,  p.  74.)  This  notion  is,  how- 
ever,  deemed  by  him  perfectly  erroneous,  (vol.  i,  p.  101,) 
and  the  demonology  of  the  Jews  is  treated  by  l)im  as  in  no 
way  connected  with  the  Scripture  account  of  the  devil,  or 
with  the  design  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ.  (Vol.  i> 
p.  98.)     It  will  therefore  be  necessary  to  examine  it. 

The  demoniacs,  of  whom  we  have  so  many  accounts  in 
the  New  Testanient,  were  persons  really  possessed  by  de- 
mons. Such  is  the  account  which  the  evangelists  give  of 
them.  They  do  not  speak  of  them  as  supposed  to  be  pos- 
sessed, but  as  being  really  so.  "  There  met  him  two  pos- 
sessed  with  demons,  Matt,  viii,  28.  Such  is  their  uniform 
language.  These  demons  v/ere  wicked  spirits,  "  And 
they  that  were  vexed  with  unclean  spirits  (came  :)  and 
they  were  healed,"  Luke  vi,  18.  "When  the  unclean 
spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man  he  walketh  through  dry  places, 
seeking  rest  ;  and  finding  none,  he  saith,  I  will  return 
unto  my  house  whence  I  came  out.  Then  goeth  he,  and 
taketh  to  him  seven  other  spirits  more  wicked  than  him- 
self; and  they  enter  inland  dwell  there  :  and  the  last  state 
of  that  man  is  worse  than  the  first,"  Luke  xi,  24-26* 
Hence,  their  uniform  language  is,  "  He  was  casting  out  a 
demon,"  Luke  xi,  14.  The  circumstances  of  these  cases 
admit  of  no  other  supposition  than  of  real  possessions. 
While  the  men  said  to  be  possessed  were  cut  ofl'  from  all 
intercourse  with  persons  who  might  give  them  any  in- 
formation respecting  Jesus  Christ,  and  tlierefore  knew 
nothing  of  him,  what  wore  they  who  said,  '•  What  have 
we  to  do  with  tliee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God  ?  art  thou  come 
hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time?"  who  in  answer  to 
the  question,  "What  is  tiiy  name?  said.  Legion:  be- 
cause many  demons  were  entered  into  him  ?"  Luke  viii, 
30. — Who  besought  him  to  "  sutler  them  to  go  away  into 
the  herd  of  swine  ?"  Wljo  went  into  the  herd  of  swine,  and 
drove  them,  in  spite  of  their  keepers,  into  the  sea  ?  Matt, 
viii,  28-32.  What  is  that  but  a  spirit,  that  seeks  rest  but 
can  find  none?  that  resolves  to  return  to  his  first  abode?' 
and  that  taketh  with  him  seven  other  spirits,  more  wickei 
than  himself? 


THE   EXIST^ENCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  41 

Mr.  G.  grants  that  such  were  the  opinions  of  the  Jews, 
and  supposes  that  "  it  was  no  part  of  the  office  of  Jesus 
to  controvert  them  ;"  (vol.  i,  p.  98  ;)  but  rather  tlT&t  "he 
adopted  the  phraseology"  of  those  "  to  whom  his  instruc- 
tions were  addressed."  (Vol.  i,  p.  73.)  He  makes,  indeed, 
some  apology  for  this,  by  supposing  the  doctrines  of  de- 
monology  to  be  merely  philosophical :  and  "  our  Saviour 
(says  he)  was  not  sent  to  teach  philosophy."     (Vol.  i,  p. 
98.)     But  will  this  be  a  sufficient  vindication  of  him  who 
came  "  to  bear  witness  of  the  truth  ?"  Did  Jesus  Christ 
not  only  overlook  the  superstitions  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lived,  but  confirm  them  ?     Mr.  Yates  says  it  is  the  opinion 
of  the  Unitarians  that  Jesus  Christ,  "  by  the  force  of  his 
doctrines  and  example,  saves  men   from   ignorance  and 
superstition."     (See  p.  32.)     Was  it  then  for  this  purpose 
Jesus  Christ  falsely  declared  that  the  demons  he  cast  out 
■were  "  unclean  spirits  ?"  Luke  xi,  24.     Nay,  is  not  this 
to  charge  the  Son  of  God  with  imposture  ?     Did  he  not 
represent  his  actually  "  casting  out  demons  by  the  finger 
of  God,"    as  a  proof  that  "  the  kingdom   of  God  was 
comef  Luke  xi,  20.     Was  he  not,  then,  on  Mr.  G.'s  hy. 
pothesis,  a  false  and  uncommissioned  teacher  ?  If  so,  it  is 
time  to  give  up  our  appeals  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  to  receive,  as  the  only  true  apostles  of  God,  the  So- 
cinians,  who  now  teach  that  "  whatsoever  was  written  of 
old  time  was  (not)  written  for  our  learning,"  but  in  con- 
formity to  the  superstitions  of  the  times !  Happily  for  us, 
however,  Mr.  G.  has  lucid  intervals;  and  at  one  of  those 
seasons,  more  favourable  to  truth,  he  says,  in  proof  that  he 
ought  not  to  be  afraid  of  attacking  popular   prejudices, 
"  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  pursued  one  direct  course,  in 
opposition  to  long-estabhshed  opinions,  and  regardless  and 
fearless  of  consequences,  leaving  them  to  God."     (Vol.  i, 
p.  108.)     Such  is  Mr.  G.'s  consistency  1 

On  the  supposition  that  Jesus  Christ  Avas  a  "  teacher 
sent  from  God,"  and  that  what  Mr.  G.  calls  "  his  instruc- 
tions" were  not,  like  those  of  the  Jewish  scribes,  the 
"  doctrines  of  men,"  but  the  truth  of  God,  with  what  pro- 
priety could  he  say,  "  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  all  those 
passage^in  the  New  Testament,  where  persons  are  spoken 
of  as  being  possessed  :  they  have  no  reference  to  our  sub- 
ject ;"  .(vol,  i,  p.  74  ;)  except  that  those  passages  are  an 
4* 


42  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   THE    DEVIL- 

insuperable  bar  to  the  progress  of  Socinianism  ?  To  show 
that  they  have  the  most  direct  "  reference"  to  our  subject, 
we  will  observe  that, 

1.  Of  these  demons  the  Jews  deemed  Beelzebub  the 
chief.  Mr.  G.  has  granted  this  proposition;  (vol.  i,  p.  74;) 
and  St.  Luke  relates  that  "some  of  them  said,  He  casteth 
out  demons  through  Beelzebub,  the  chief  of  the  demons," 
Luke  xi,  15. 

2.  This  Beelzebub,  the  chief  of  the  demons,  our  Lord 
called  Satan.  For  when  the  Jews  thus  accused  him  of 
casting  out  demons  by  Beelzebub,  he  said  unto  them,  "  If 
Satan  be  divided  against  himself,  how  shall  his  kingdom 
stand  ?  because  ye  say  that  I  cast  out  demons  by  Beelze- 
bub," Luke  xi,  18. 

3.  The  name  Satan  is  that  which  our  Lord  generally 
used  in  speaking  of  him ;  but  he  whom  our  Lord  calls 
Satan,  is  by  the  evangelist,  speaking  his  own  language, 
called  the  devil.  In  the  account  which  St.  Matthew  has 
given  of  our  Lord's  temptation,  he  relates  that  Jesus  said, 
"Get thee  hence,  Satan,"  Matt,  iv,  10.  But  the  evange- 
list  says,  "  The  devil  taketh  him  up  into  the  holy  city  ;" 
"  the  devil  taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding  high  moun- 
tain ;"  and  "  then  the  devil  leaveth  him,"  Matt,  iv,  5, 
8,  11. 

4.  This  Satan,  the  devil,  Beelzebub,  is  called  the  chief 
of  demons ;  and  in  perfect  accord  with  this  notion  our 
Lord  attributed  to  him  a  kingdom.  "  If  Satan  be  divided 
against  himself,  how  shall  his  kingdom  stand?"  Luke  xi, 
18.  Hence  wc  read  so  often  of  "  the  devil  and  his 
angels." 

5.  These  demons,  the  subjects  of  Beelzebub,  the  de- 
vil's  angels,  are  also  called  Satan.  Our  Lord  supposes 
that  for  Beelzebub  to  cast  out  demons,  would  be  for 
"  Satan  to  cast  out  Satan,"  Matt.  xii;26.  Thus  one  de- 
mon or  many  is  Satan.  In  like  manner,  as  the  operations 
of  an  army  are  attributed  to  their  general  because  it  moves 
under  his  direction,  so  the  operations  of  tiic  demons,  under 
the  direction  of  their  chief,  are  attributed  to  him.  "  Put 
on,"  says  the  Apostle  Paul.  ;'  the  whole  armour  of  God, 
that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil. 
For  we  wrestle  against  principalities,  against  powers, 
against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,"  Eph.  vi. 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF    THE    DEVIL.  43 

11,  12.    Thus  the  devil,  in  the  singular  number,  is  equiva- 
lent to  principalities,  powers,  and  rulers,  in  the  plural. 

6.  These  "  principalities,  powers,  and  rulers"  are  said 
to  be  "  not  flesh  and  blood,"  not  men,  but  spiritu8Cr\vick- 
edness  in  high  (heavenly)  places,"  Eph.  vi,  12. 

7.  And  lastly.  This  chief  of  demons,  the  devil  and 
Satan,  is  called  the  tempter.  And  when  "the  tempter 
came  to  him,"  &c..  Matt,  iv,  3.  "  That  Satan  tempt  you 
not,"  1  Cor.  vii,  5. 

Thus,  instead  of  finding  that  the  passages  in  which 
demons  are  mentioned  "  have  no  reference  to  our  subject," 
we  find  them  a  most  useful  key  to  open  the  doctrine  on 
which  Mr.  G.  has  so  rashly  and  injudiciously  made  an 
attack.  We  will  now  consider  some  of  those  passages 
which  still  farther  illustrate  and  confirm  the  truths  which 
we  have  developed. 

The  first  case  which  we  shall  consider  is  the  seduction 
of  Eve.  The  Mosaic  account  of  that  transaction  Mr  G. 
has  attempted  to  puzzle  by  a  dilemma.  He  supposes  that 
we  must  interpret  it  either  literally,  and  so  make  nonsense 
of  it,  or  allegorically,  and  make  nearly  nothing  of  it.  And 
is  this  really  the  case  ?  Must  every  thing  which  is  said 
or  written  be  interpreted  as  "  perfectly  literal"  or  entirely 
allegorical  ?     Is  there  no  medium  ?     Let  us  try. 

There  is  no  impropriety  whatever  in  supposing  that  the 
whole  transaction  is  related  just  as  it  appeared.  "  The 
serpent  was  more  subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field  which 
the  Lord  God  had  made."  The  serpent  then  was  a  real 
serpent,  a  beast  of  the  field,  and  a  creature  which  God 
had  made.  "And  he  said  unto  the  woman,"  &c.  So  it 
was.  He  actually  spoke.  And  this  circumstance  leads 
us  to  inquire,  whether  in  this  transaction  the  serpent  were 
a  principal,  or  merely  the  tool  of  another.  The  reasoning 
and  speech  were  not  his  own,  and  we  are  warranted  to  say 
that  they  were  of  the  devil.  "  Little  children,  let  no  man 
deceive  you.  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil ;  for 
the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning.  For  this  purpose 
the  Son  of  God  was  manifested  that  he  might  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil,"  1  John  iii,  7,  8.  Here  we  learn  that 
sin  is  of  the  devil  from  the  beginning,  and  that  He  that  came 
to  "  bruise  the  serpent's  head,"  came  to  destroy  the  works 
of  the  devil.     Nor  is  this  interpretation  in  any  measure 


44  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   THE    DEVIL. 

forced,  but  perfectly  consonant  with  tlie  general  tenor  of 
Scripture.  "  The  old  serpent"  is  said  to  be  "  the  devil 
and  Satan,"  Rev.  xx,  2.  Our  Lord  said  to  the  Jews, 
"Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your 
father  ye  will  do.  He  was  a  murderer  from  tlie  beginning, 
and  abode  not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in 
him.  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own  ; 
for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  it,"  John  viii,  44.  Who 
then  can  doubt  that  he  was  the  father  of  that  lie  by  which 
our  parent  was  deceived ;  and  by  the  effect  of  it  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning  ? 

We  do  not,  however,  say,  as  Mr.  G.  supposes,  "  that 
there  grew  a  tree  whose  fruit  was  capable  of  imparting  a 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,"  (vol.  i,  p.  80  ;)  but  of  which 
the  prohibition  taught  man  to  know  what  wag  good,  viz., 
to  abstain  from  that  fruit ;  and  what  was  evil,  viz.,  to  eat 
of  it.  We  say  "  that  God  walked  in  the  garden  to  seek 
for  Adam,"  not  because  we  forget  that  God  is  a  spirit; 
but  because  we  believe  that  if  we  had  witnessed  the  trans- 
action, we  could  not  have  described  it  in  more  appropriate 
terms.  We  do  not  say  "  that  Adam  called  to  inform  the 
Deity  of  his  hiding  place ;"  but  that  Mr.  G.  should  read 
the  passage  on  which  he  comments.  We  say  that  the  ser- 
pent "  was  cursed  above  all  cattle,"  because  we  believe  that 
Mr.  G.  cannot  contradict  that  saying,  any  more  than  he 
can  deny  that  it  "  was  compelled  to  crawl  upon  the  ground 
and  eat  the  dust"  with  its  ibod. 

As  Mr.  G.'s  prejudice  has  raised  these,  to  him,  insu- 
perable  difficulties  in  tiie  common  interpretation  of  this 
passage,  his  ingenuit)^,  with  a  little  assistance,  has  found 
out  another  which  he  imagines  to  be  more  easy.  He  has 
learned  from  Philo  the  Jew  that  "  it  is  an  allegory  ex- 
pressive of  what  really  happened,  under  feigned  images ; 
and  the  serpent,  says  he,  is  an  emblem  of  vicious  plea- 
sure,"  (vol.  i,  p.  81.)  But  here  we  must  pay  a  just 
tribute  to  Mr.  G.'s  prudence !  He  does  not  say  that  it  is 
so,  but  makes  use  of  this  Jewish  fable  to  get  rid  of  the 
difficulty,  and  then  leaves  poor  Philo  to  answer  for  it. 
But  until  Mr.  G.  honestly  disclaim  what  he  dare  not  ven. 
ture  to  maintain,  it  will  not  l)e  unfair  to  say  that  he  ought 
to  bo  sure  that  he  has  not  multiplied,  instead  of  lessening 
our  difficulties.     1.  Tliis  half-adopted  comment  is  a  mere 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF    THE    DEVIL.  45 

gratuitous  assumption,  without  the  smallest  particle  of 
proof.  But  then,  to  a  Socinian,  proof  is  not  always  neces- 
sary  for  the  support  of  his  own  hypothesis.  To  get  rid 
of  the  testimony  of  Scripture  is  the  task,  and  the  ineans 
are  not  to  be  scrupulously  examined.  2.  If  the  whole  be 
an  allegory,  and  Mr.  G.  loudly  insists  upon  consistency, 
then  we  have  not  only  an  allegorical  serpent,  but  an  alle- 
gorical tree,  bearing  allegorical  fruit,  and  an  allegorical 
garden ;  an  allegorical  woman,  formed  allegorically  out 
of  an  allegorical  man  ;  in  a  word  an  allegorical  creation. 
But  Mr.  G.  has  brought  us  into  a  labyrinth,  from  which 
it  will  puzzle  both  him  and  the  "  learned  Jew"  to  extricate 
us.  3.  The  serpent  is  indirectly  said  to  be  one  of  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  which  the  Lord  God  had  made ; 
whereas  vicious  pleasure,  however  beastly,  is  neither  a 
beast  nor  a  creature  of  God.  4.  "  Vicious  pleasure"  had 
no  existence  in  the  woman  until  she  had  been  guilty  of 
sin,  by  tasting  of  a  forbidden  pleasure.  Could  she  know 
any  thing  of  the  pleasure  of  sin  before  she  had  sinned  ? 
5.  Moses  describes  the  reasonings  of  the  tempter  as  pre- 
ceding the  thought  of  the  pleasure  of  eating  the  forbidden 
fruit.  The  woman  first  heard  the  tempter,  and  afterward 
saw  "  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was 
pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one 
wise."  The  tempter  was  therefore  distinct  from  the 
thought  of  any  pleasure  in  the  sin.  6.  How  is  "  vicious 
pleasure"  cursed  ?  Is  there  any  curse  attached  to  it  now 
more  than  before  the  fall?  And  how  is  "vicious  plea- 
sure" cursed  above  all  cattle  ?  7.  What  enmity  is  there 
now  put  between  the  woman  and  vicious  pleasure  ?  Was 
there  not  greater  enmity  between  them  before  than  since 
the  commission  of  sin  ?  8.  How  is  vicious  pleasure  to  eat 
the  dust  ? 

No  absurdities  are  too  great  for  those  who  refuse  to 
take  the  plain  letter  of  Scripture  for  their  guide  :  who 
"  strain  out  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel !"  When  an 
atheist  speaks  of  the  phenomena  around  him,  because  he 
cannot  do  so  without  allowing  a  great,  universal,  free,  and 
active  first  cause,  he  imagines  a  being  whom  he  calls 
Nature,  to  whom  he  attributes  the  designs  and  operations 
of  a  reaf  being,  whose  existence  he  is  disposed  to  deny. 
Thus,  they  who  wish  to  drive  the  devil  out  of  the  universe 


46  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    THE    DEVIL. 

cannot  help  observing  how  many  of  his  works  remain  ; 
and  feel  themselves  under  the  necessity  of  finding  him  a 
substitute,  who,  during  his  absence,  may  manage  hisatfairs 
with  as  much  discretion,  and  do  liis  work  with  as  much 
ability,  as  he  himself.  To  eflect  this,  a  well  imagined 
being  is  poetically  created,  which,  lest  it  should  seem  to 
be  nothing  for  want  of  a  name,  is  dubbed  "  the  evil  prin- 
ciple," or  "  vicious  pleasure."  It  must  not  be  supposed 
that  this  is  a  devil,  an\  more  than  that  nature  is  a  god. 
It  has  neither  a  body  nor  a  soul.  It  is  a  mere  accident, 
without  any  substance  in  which  to  inhere.  It  was  not  in 
God  ;  for  "  God  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all." 
It  was  not  in  man  before  the  fall,  "  for  in  the  image  of 
God  made  he  him."  It  did  not  exist  in  the  serpent,  for 
that  is  supposed  to  be  a  nonentity,  and  in  fact  was  a  mere 
animal,  and  therefore  incapable  of  moral  principles,  either 
good  or  evil.  It  was  an  etFect  without  a  cause.  It  had 
a  beginning  without  an  autiior.  And  it  had  an  existence 
when,  as  yet,  it  was  nothing.  It  was  an  absurdity  fit  only 
to  nestle  in  the  brains  of  would-be  philosophers,  and  to 
cast  its  spawn  in  those  works  which  are  intended  to  sup- 
plant the  Bible.  It  is  the  property  of  error  to  be  incon- 
sistent. When  the  degeneracy  of  human  nature  is  to  be 
denied,  no  evil  principle  is  acknowledged.  But  when  the 
devil  is  to  be  destroyed,  his  ghost  haunts  his  murderers  in 
the  shape  of  "  the  evil  principle,"  and  is  left  sufficiently 
alive  and  substantial  to  find  a  way  into  the  heart  of  Eve, 
and  to  tempt  even  Jesus  Christ.  What  devil  that  was  ever 
invented  could  be  worse  than  this  "  evil  principle  ?" 

The  book  of  Job,  which  records  the  manifold  tompta. 
lions  of  that  "upright  man,"  imputes  them  all  to  Satan, 
and  was  probably  written  to  make  known  to  God's  peo- 
ple the  author  of  mischief,  and  to  guard  them  against  his 
temptations.  Mr.  G.  grants  that  '•  tliis'great  doctrine  (the 
being  of  Satan)  is  more  explicitly  taught  in  that  than  in 
any  other  book,"  (vol.  i,  p.  81,)  and  therefore  needed  not 
to  suppose  that  it  was  •'  borrowed  from  the  Persian  the- 
ology,  or  conjured  up  by  philosophers,  at  a  nonplus  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  eviJ,"  (vol.  i,  p.  76.)  W^e,  on 
the  other  hand,  may  be  excused  if  we  have  imbibed  our 
opinions  from  that  book,  for  those  opinions  cannot  now  be 
said  to  be  uuscriptural.     What  then  is  to  be  done  ?  Why, 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  47 

with  the  utmost  effrontery,  he  calls  it  "  an  eastern  fable,  a 
poetical  effusion,  not  improbably  a  drama,"  (vol.  i,  p.  81.) 
Thus,  with  a  Socinian,  those  parts  of  Scripture  wlwch  do 
not  give  countenance  to  his  creed,  are  any  thing,  or  no- 
thing ;  a  legendary  tale,  or  an  old  ballad.  Instead  of 
granting  that  "whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime 
were  written  for  our  learning ;"  he  will  (some  would  say 
blasphemously)  suppose  that  they  were  written  when  the 
author  was  in  a  merry  mood,  for  the  entertainment  of  boys 
and  girls  on  a  holiday. 

"  The  first  chapter,"  says  Mr.  G.,  "  will  furnish  us  with 
a  key  to  the  term  (Satan)  in  every  other  part  of  the  book  ;" 
(vol.  i,  p.  81 ;)  but  he  might  as  well  have  called  it  a  fire 
in  which  to  burn  the  whole.  The  difficulties  with  which 
he  meets  in  that  chapter  are  converted  into  some  kind  of 
proof  that  the  whole  must  be  an  allegory.  Now  we  must 
observe  two  things  :  1.  That  the  allusions  with  which  we 
meet  in  Scripture  are  allusions  to  real  facts,  and  to  real 
beings.  The  sacred  writers  do  not  "  conjure  up"  imagi- 
nary beings  at  a  "  nonplus,"  either  for  the  exercise  of  their 
genius,  or  the  amusement  of  their  readers.  Such  a  con- 
duct would  but  ill  become  those  who  are  commissioned  to 
instruct  mankind  in  things  spiritual.  If  therefore  we  should 
grant  that  the  first  chapter  of  Job  is  an  allegory,  still  we 
should  maintain  that  all  its  allusions  are  founded  in  facts, 
and  that  the  poetical  mention  of  Satan,  in  such  a  book, 
would  be  proof  of  his  existence.  Mankind  have  invented 
superstitions  enow,  without  receiving  any  addition  to  them 
from  those  Scriptures  which  are  intended  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  error,  and  the  diffusion  of  Divine  truth.  So  far  is 
the  book  of  Job  from  "  darkening  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge,"  that  in  that  book  the  practice  is  reproved  : 
see  Job  xxx,  8.  2.  That  there  is  no  ground  for  the  sup- 
position that  the  book  of  Job  is  an  allegory.  It  is  an 
exposition  of  what  actuallj-  took  place,  couched  in  such 
terms  as  Avill  best  convey  the  truth  to  human  minds.  In 
what  terms  would  Mr.  G.  describe  the  transactions  of  the 
invisible  world,  if  he  reject  such  as  are  used  in  the  chapter 
in  question?  Have  those  Socinians  who  suppose  their 
own  soulsjo  be  nothing  but  organized  matter,  refined  and 
spiritualized  their  ideas,  so  as  to  be  able  to  speak  of  spi- 
ritual things  in  any  other  language  than  "  after  the  man- 
ner of  men  ?" 


48  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   THE    DEVIL, 

To  answer  Mr.  G.'s  objections  to  the  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  this  book,  is  rather  to  instruct  ignorance  than  to 
combat  argument.  "  Satan,"  says  he,  "  comes  miawed, 
unabashed,  into  the  presence  of  the  Almighty !  The  great 
Jehovah  condescends  to  hold  a  conversation  with  him, 
upon  terms  of  the  utmost  famiUariiy.  With  the  most  per- 
fect confidence,  he  gives  an  account  to  God  what  he  has 
been  doing.  The  Almighty  points  out  a  being  to  him  as 
having  escaped  his  notice!"  (vol.  i,  p.  88.)  Now  is  this 
argument  ?  Is  it  any  thing  more  than  flourish  ?  The  words 
printed  in  italics  are  the  emphatical  words,  and  in  them 
the  strength  of  the  supposed  argument  consists.  But  they 
are  the  comment,  not  the  text.  One  of  them  is  entirely 
false,  and  the  rest  are  mere  conjecture.  Again :  "  He 
begs  of  God  to  afflict  this  man  !"  What  wonder?  "  God 
gives  him  permission  to  afflict  him."  And  does  not  God 
permit  all  our  afflictions?  Does  not  Mr.  G.  know  that 
blessed  is  the  man  that  cndureth  temptation  ;  for  when  he 
is  tried  he  shall  receive  the  crown  of  life?  "  Was  it  neces- 
sary that  he  should  first  go  and  petition  the  Almighty  ?" 
He  could  not  afflict  Job  without  permission  ;  for  at'ter  all 
the  devil  is  not  almighty.  "  In  every  sense  of  the  word 
was  not  the  devil  his  (God's)  agent  ?"  No.  He  acted  not 
for  God,  at  the  divine  command,  but  under  permission. 
"  Were  not  the  Sabeans,  the  Chaldeans,  the  lightning,  the 
hurricane,  sufficient  agents  of  the  Deity?"  Now  Mr.  G. 
has  answered  his  own  question.  Why  might  not  Satan  be 
permitted  to  do  apparent  mischief,  as  well  as  the  Sabeans 
and  the  Chaldeans  ?  "But  were  not  the  latter  sufficient  ?" 
They  did  not  fight  against  Job,  till  Satan  had  obtained 
permission,  and  then  they  acted  their  part  under  his  influ- 
ence  and  management.  "But  Job  imputes  the  whole  to 
God."  He  did  so,  and  justly;  for  aU  Job's  (rials  had  by 
him  been  wisely  permitted  and  overruled.  If  this  argument 
prove  the  nonentity  of  Satan,  it  will  equally  prove  the  non- 
entity of  the  Sabeans  and  Chaldeans. 

But  how  does  Mr.  G.'s  interpretation  consist  with  the 
text?  "The  sons  of  God  were  the  holy  men  mIio  came  to 
worship  in  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  Their  wicked  adver- 
saries, their  Satan,  assembled  with  them,  opposed  them  to 
the  utmost  of  their  power,  and  were  permitted  by  God  to 
be  successful  in  their  schemes  of  hostility."     This  is  the 


THE  exist|;nce  of  the  devil.  49 

way  to  make  every  thing  simple  and  clear.  Now  what 
becomes  of  the  conversation  between  God  and  Satan  ?  It 
is  unphilosophical !  What  raised  the  hurricane  ?  What 
caused  the  lightning  to  descend  1  Who  afflicted  Job'^  body 
with  biles  ?  Mr.  G.  has  left  you  to  find  out  all  that  as  you 
may.  He  does  not  wish  to  be  responsible  for  the  diffictdties 
of  which  he  is  the  author. 

Our  "  great  High  Priest  was  tempted  in  all  things,  like 
the  children  of  men."  His  temptations  are,  by  the  evan- 
gelist, imputed  to  a  diabolical  agency.  The  whole  account 
of  this  transaction  is  to  be  found  in  Matt.  iv.  But 
Mr.  G.  again  objects  to  the  literal  interpretation.  With- 
out repeating  that  the  whole  account  is  couched  in  terms 
the  most  proper  for  conveying  the  truth  of  the  facts  to 
mankind,  we  will  hear  and  answer  his  objections. 

"Jesus  was    led  by   the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  on 
purpose  to  be  tempted  by  the  devil."  (Vol.  i,  p.  87.)    Just 
so.     He  came  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head  ;    and  there 
must  be  a  conflict  before  there  could  be  a  conquest.     "  I 
will  put  enmity  (said  God  himself)  between  thee  and  the 
woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed,"  Gen.  iii, 
15.     "  He  had  fasted  forty  days,  when  he  began  to  be 
hungry."  (Vol.  i,  p.  87.)   That  he  was  hungry  after  a  fast  of 
forty  days  is  no  great  wonder.     And  that  he  should  fast 
forty  days  without  being  hungry  till  then,  is  as  possible  as 
that  he  should  live  forty  days  without  food  ;  or  that  Moses 
and  Elijah  should  hold  a  fast  of  the  same  duration.     "  All 
things  are  possible  with  God."     *'  Man  shall  not  live  by 
bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God  :"  by  any  means  which  God  is  pleased  to 
ordain.     "  He  knew  the  devil  as  soon  as  he  appeared  to 
him."  (Vol.  i,  p.  87.)    What  then?     "The  devil  walked 
with  him  through  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  to  a  pinnacle  of 
the  temple."     Suppose  the  devil  to   have  assumed  a  hu- 
man appearance,  and  where  is  the  difficulty  1     "  He  next 
accompanied  him  to  a  high  mountain,  where  he  could  see 
all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  ;  a  thing  naturally  impos- 
sible!" (Vol.  i,  p.  87.)    Perhaps  it  was  a  visionary  repre- 
sentation.  Or,  the  expression  may  possibly  have  a  limited 
meaning,  as  in  Luke  ii,  1.     "  And  then  the  devil,  know- 
ing  he  wsts  speaking  to  tlie  Son  of  God,  who  was  aware 
who  he  was,  had  the  presumption  to  ask,  that  he  would  fall 

5 


50  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    THE    DEVIL. 

down  and  worship  him  instead  of  God  the  Father."  (Vol. 
i,  p.  88.)  Mr.  G.  is  very  much  concerned  that  the  devil 
should  speak  and  act  with  great  propriety  and  decorum, 
and  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the  omniscience  which  he  im- 
putes to  him.  Satan  has  not,  however,  on  this  occasion, 
manifested  so  mucii  presumption  as  Mr.  G.'s  jealousy 
has  led  him  to  suspect.  He  did  not  ask  the  Son  of  God 
to  worship  him  instead  of  God  the  Father :  but  since 
the  contest  between  them  was  for  the  dominion  of  the 
world,  he  with  sufficient  subtlety  and  impudence,  pro- 
posed to  cede  to  him  the  whole  on  condition  that  he  would 
do  him  religious  homage  for  it.  "  Upon  supposition  that 
all  these  inconsistencies  (an  unlucky  word !)  still  gain 
credit,  I  add  one  more,  that  if  Jesus  Christ  were  a  deity, 
this  was  no  temptation  at  all,  for  he  knew-  him  from  the 
first,  it  required  no  effort  to  resist  him,  and  nothing  was  to 
be  gained,  but  every  thing  lost  by  obeying  him."  (Vol.  i, 
p.  88.)  All  the  "inconsistency,"  as  Mr.  G.  calls  it,  arises 
from  a  false  supposition,  that  if  Jesus  Christ  was  God,  he 
was  not  man  ;  that  if  he  was  almighty,  he  had  no  human 
infirmity.  Suppose  him  human  as  well  as  divine,  and  the 
difficulty  vanishes.  On  Mr.  G.'s  hypothesis,  Jesus  Christ 
had  then  received  "  miraculous  powers  ;"  (vol.  i,  p.  88  ;) 
if  so,  what  effort  was  necessary  to  him  in  withstanding 
temptation  ?  The  power  which  afterward  cast  out  demons 
was  sufficient  to  withstand  this  temptation.  The  answer 
in  one  case  serves  equally  with  the  other.  In  either  case, 
"nothing  was  to  be  gained,  but  every  thing  (was  to  be)  lost 
by  obeying"  the  tempter. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  Mr.  G.'s  comment  on  the  history 
of  our  Lord's  temptation.  "  Contrast  with  this  interpreta- 
tion  the  following,  wliich  the  very  expression  of  being  led 
by  the  Spirit  seems  at  once  to  denote.  As  soon  as  Jesus 
had  received  from  God  all  the  miraculous  pow-ers  con- 
ferred upon  him  at  his  baptism,  his  mind  was  occupied 
with  the  thought  how  he  might  be  able  to  use  these 
powers.  Worldly  thoughts  first  arose  ;  worldly  objects 
presented  themselves  to  his  view.  This  adversary  to 
divine  things,  this  Satan,  suggested  to  him  the  use  of  his 
miraculous  powers.  How  he  might  gratify  his  palate  by 
speaking  only  to  the  stones ;  how  he  might  command 
universal  admiration  and  obedience,  by  publicly  throwing 


THE    EXISTE|VCE    OF    THE     DEVIL.  51 

himself  from  tlie  temple ;  how  he  might  gain  universal 
dominion  by  the  corrupt  use  of  his  power."  (Vol.  i, 
p.  89.) 

We  may  observe  that,  in  his  own  comments,  Mr.  G. 
meets  with  no  difficulty.  He  never  applies  his  key  to  try 
whether  it  be  fitted  to  all  the  wards  of  the  lock.  We  will 
point  out  its  deficiencies,  its  contradiction  to  the  text,  and 
its  glaring  improprieties. 

1.  There  are  in  his  hypothesis  many  great  deficiencies. 
It  affords  no  explanation,  either  proper  or  figurative,  of 
most  of  the  circumstances  of  the  history.  It  includes  no 
account  of  the  "  wilderness"  into  which  Jesus  was  led  ;  of 
the  purpose  for  which  he  was  led  thither ;  of  the  leader 
who  brought  him  thither  ;  of  the  time  which  he  spent 
there  ;  of  tlie  fast  which  he  held  ;  of  the  "  coming  of  the 
tempter  ;  of  Christ's  journey  from  the  wilderness  to  the 
holy  city ;  of  his  being  set  on  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple  ; 
of  his  journey  from  thence  to  an  exceeding  high  moun- 
tain ;  of  the  view  which  he  had  of  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world ;  of  the  worship  which  some  person  requested  ;  or 
of  the  promise  which  that  person  made  to  him. 

2.  The  comment  contradicts  the  text.  St.  Matthew  says 
that  Jesus  was  led  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness.  Mr. 
G.  grants  that  he  had  received  the  Spirit ;  and  cites  the 
words  "led  by  the  Spirit;"  but  supposes  him  to  be  led 
only  b}^  his  own  thoughts :  thoughts  which  could  not  be 
suggested  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  text  names  four 
times  the  devil  as  the  tempter.  Now  this  word  was  per- 
fectiy  unmanageable.  Mr.  G.  knows  that  it  means  a 
slanderer,  and  he  has  not  been  able  to  find  a  place  where 
the  word  is  used,  except  where  it  is  applied  to  some  real 
being.  As  this  word,  therefore,  would  not  bend  to  his 
purpose,  he  takes  hold  rather  of  the  word  Satan,  which 
our  Lord  has  once  used,  as  more  flexible.  He  could  not 
make  worldly  thoughts  into  a  slanderer,  but  he  could  sup. 
pose  them  an  adversary. 

3.  Mr.  G.'s  "  interpretation"  has  in  it  some  glaring 
improprieties.  According  to  him,  the  ''  first  thoughts" 
which  arose  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  after  lie  had  received 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  when  he  was  under  the  special 
guidance  of  that  Spirit,  were  "worldly  thoughts."  (Vol. 
if  p.  88.)     Here  is  the  abstract  "evil  principle!"    The 


52  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    THE    DEVIL. 

accident  without  a  substance  !  "  The  cloven  foot  walking 
about  without  the  devil,"  We  do  not  misunderstand  Mr. 
G.  "  The  word  devil  (he  says)  seems  in  general  accep- 
tation to  signify  nothing  more  than  that  propensity  to  ill 
observable  in  the  human  mind  ;*  and,  like  many 
occult  qualities,  is  found  of  great  use  in  the  solution  of 
various  difficulties."  (Vol.  i,  p.  76.)  Thus  all  .Mr.  G.'s  dif- 
ficulties are  solved  by  applying  this  "  occult  quality,"  this 
"  propensity  to  ill,"  to  him  "  who  was  holy,  harmless,  unde- 
filed,  and  separate  from  sinners."  The  Socinians  have 
now  attached  the  "  cloven  foot  to  the  Saviour  of  mankind  ! 
No  wonder  that  Jesus,  no  real  devil  being  with  him,  put- 
ting this  ioot  foremost,  found  his  way  to  the  pinnacle  of 
the  tem[)le,  that  he  might  cast  himself  down ;  or  to  the 
moimtain  from  which  he  might  see  the  glorious  kingdoms 
of  the  world,  and  worship — nothing.  Who  are  they  now 
who  crucify  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open 
shame  ?  Who  are  they  who  count  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant an  unholy  thing  ? 

There  is  a  passage  in  St.  Jude  to  which  Mr.  G.  has? 
replied  in  a  note ;  but  which  might  have  deserved  some 
notice  in  the  body  of  his  work.  "  It  may  be  well,"  says 
he,  "  to  mention  a  tradition  which  will  serve  to  elucidate 
Jude  9,  respecting  Michael  the  archangel  and  the  devil. 
Among  the  Talmudists  there  is  something  like  the  relics  of 
such  a  matter,  namely,  of  Michael  and  the  angel  of  death 
disputing  or  discoursing  about  fetching  away  the  soul  of 
Moses.  This  messenger  of  death,  therefore,  is  called  the 
devil  or  adversary."  (Vol.  i,  j).  94.)  So  the  words  "dis- 
puting and  discoursing," — the  "  body  of  Moses"  and  the 
"  soul  of  Moses" — "  devil"  and  "  adversary,"  are  here  made 
convertible  terms.  So  much  for  Socinian  precision  ? 
This,  to  imitate  it,  is  "  to  elucidate,"  or  "  to  put  darkness 
for  light  !"  The  passage  is,  however,  a  very  ingenious 
contrivance !     To    get   rid   of  the  devil,  another   being, 

»  Cluery.  Woukl  Mr.  G.,  and  his  consistent  lircthron  of  the 
Socinian  unbehef,  find  "that  propensity  to  ill  (so)ob.s-ervablein  the 
human  mind,"  if  thev  were  discussing  the  question  of  the  depravity 
of  human  nature.  Here,  they  lind  il"ob-;ervable"'  in  Jcmis  Christ 
himself.  Is  this  more  like  a'  "  free  inquiry"  after  truth,  or  a  con- 
test for  victory,  in  which  even  truth  it-silf,  with  its  inseparable 
companion,  consistency,  is  to  be  immolated  ! 


THE    EXIS1BNCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  53 

created  by  the  fertile  imagination  of  the  Jews,  is  permitted 
by  the  Socinians  to  occupy  his  place.  And  this  "  eluci- 
dation" is  supposed  to  be  a  satisfactory  answer Jio  all 
who  urge  the  testimony  of  St.  Jude,  as  evidence  of  the 
■existence  of  the  devil.  Such  are  the  arguments  of  these 
great  masters  of  reason  !  Here  is  a  being  whose  real 
existence,  without  a  shadow  of  proof  from  the  Scriptures, 
is  taken  for  granted  ;  "the  angel  of  death  !"  And  yet  after 
all,  this  "angel  of  death"  may  be  "  he  that  has  the  power 
of  death,  that  is,  the  devil."  A  good  angel  would  not  dis- 
pute with  Michael,  and  contend  about  the  "  body  of  Moses." 
To  a  good  angel,  Michael  would  not  say,  "  The  Lord 
rebuke  thee."  And  lastly,  a  good  angel  would  not  be  the 
"adversary"  (as  Mr.  G.  calls  this)  either  of  Moses  or  of 
Michael.  In  fact,  these  words  of  Jude  afford  a  direct  and 
positive  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  fallen  angel,  who  is 
called  by  him  "  the  devil." 

When  Jesus  had  sent  out  the  "  seventy,  they  returned 
again  with  joy,  saying,  Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject 
to  us  through  thy  name.  And  he  said  unto  them,  I  be- 
held Satan,  as  lightning,  fall  from  heaven,"  Luke  x,  17,  18. 
Satan,  we  have  learned,  is  the  prince  of  demons,  of  whom 
our  Lord,  by  a  strong  figure,  thus  predicts  the  final  and 
entire  overthrow.  Mr.  G.,  after  a  little  flourish  about  the 
absurdity  of  a  literal  interpretation,  supposes  Satan  here 
to  mean  "  the  adversaries  of  the  Christian  cause."  To 
this  we  must  add  that  they  were,  as  the  words  of  our 
Lord  demonstrate,  especially  the  spiritual  adversaries 
which  were  intended.  "  Notwithstanding,"  he  subjoins, 
"  in  this  rejoice  not,  that  the  spirits  are  subject  unto  you," 
Luke  v,  20. 

As  we  have  found,  in  the  facts  which  have  been  exa- 
mined,  ample  reason  to  acknowledge  the  existence  of  the 
devil,  we  shall  find  in  the  general  language  of  the  New 
Testament  sufficient  reason  to  suppose  him  the  tempter  of 
mankind.  We  are  exhorted  to  "  stand  against  the  wiles 
of  the  devil,"  Eph.  vi,  11.  We  are  represented  to  be 
in  danger,  "  lest  Satan  should  get  an  advantage  against 
us;"  because  of  his  "devices,"  2  Cor.  ii,  11.  "The 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air"  is  a  "  spirit  which  worketh 
in  the  chftdren  of  disobedience,"  Eph.  i,  2.  Thus  "Cain, 
who  slew  his  brother,  was  of  the  wicked  one,"  1  John 
5* 


54  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    THE    DEVIL. 

iii,  12.  Is  any  man  ignorant  ot"  the  gospel  which  has 
been  preached  to  him? — "the  god  of  this  world  hath 
blinded  his  mind,"  2  Cor.  iv,  4.  Does  any  man  live  in 
the  commission  of  sin  ? — "  he  is  of  the  devil,"  1  John  iii. 
8.  "  Ye  are  of  your  father,  the  devil,  (said  our  Lord  to  his 
wicked  countrymen,)  and  the  lust  of  your  father  ye  will 
do,"  John  viii,  44. 

To  conclude  this  part  of  the  argument :  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  the  judgment,  the  condemnation,  and  the  punish- 
ment of  the  devil. 

1.  Of  the  judgment  of  the  devil.  "  Know  ye  not,"  says 
St.  Paul,  "that  we  shall  judge  angels  I"  By  angels,  we 
here  understand  fallen  angels  :  for  the  holy  angels  will  be 
ministers  in  the  judgment  of  men.  "When  the  Son  of 
man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with 
him,"  Matt,  xxv,  31.  "  The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth 
his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all 
things  that  ollend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity,  and  shall 
cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire,"  Matt,  xiii,  41,  42.  Now 
the  apostle's  argument  would  lose  all  its  weight,  unless  he 
meant  to  distinguish  between  fallen  men  and  fallen  angels. 

2.  Of  the  condemnation  and  punishment  of  the  devil. 
When  our  Lord  alludes  to  the  final  punishment  of  wicked 
men,  he  says,  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlast- 
ing fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels,"  Matt,  xxv, 
41.  Thus  has  he  marked  the  antecedent  sin  of  the  devil 
and  his  angels,  and  the  punishment  prepared  for  them,  as 
distinguished  from  the  wicked  men  who  are  doomed  to 
share  it  with  them. 

Thus  we  find  that  there  is  a  wicked  devil,  the  tempter 
of  mankind,  who  is  distinguished  from  men  on  the  one 
hand,  and  from  mere  abstract  principles  on  the  other. 
We  must  now  proceed  to  answer  Mr.  G.'s  incidental  ob- 
jections. 

1.  When  it  is  so  plain  a  fact  that  there  is  an  infernal 
devil,  and  spiritual  Satan,  it  can  answer  no  purpose  for 
Mr.  G.  to  quote  a  hundred  texts  of  Scripture  to  prove 
that  men  or  women  are  sometimes  called  devils,  (i.  e., 
calumniators,)  or  satans.  (i.  e.,  adversaries.)  The  exist- 
ence of  ten  thousand  human  devils,  and  earthly  satans, 
brings  no  evidence  that  tliere  is  no  chief  of  demons,  no 
spiritual  devil  or  hellish  Satan. 


THE    EXI3TI>NCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  55 

11.  It  will  not  answer  Mr.  G.'s  purpose  to  show  that 
"  nearly  every  office  which  is  usually  ascribed  to  the  de- 
vil,  is  in  some  part  of  the  Scriptures  ascribed  eittier  to 
God  or  to  angels."     (Vol.  i,  p.  108.)     This  assertion,  as 
far  as  it  relates  to  angels,  he  has  not  attempted  to  prove, 
and  therefore  that  part  of  it  goes  for  nothing.     If  he  mean 
to  impute  the  same  things  to  God,  in  the  same  sense  as  to 
the  devil,  then,  1.   He  must  exculpate  Judas,  who  betray- 
ed, and  the  chief  priests,  who  crucitied,  our  Lord  ;  "  for  be- 
ing delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknow- 
ledge of  God,  they  by  wicked   hands  crucified  and   slew 
him,"  Acts  ii,  23.     2.   He  makes  God  the  author  of  sin. 
Nothing  can   be  more  obvious  than  this ;  for  if  what  is 
wickedness  in  Satan  be  ascribed,  in  the  same  sense,  to 
God,  it  is  wickedness  still.     Nor  is  this  the  only  argument 
by  which  Mr.  G.,  in  support  of  his  system,  certainly  with 
no  other  design,  makes  God  the  author  of  all  sin,  and  lays 
on  him  the  blame  of  all  the  mischief  in  the  universe.     "  If 
the  Almighty,"  says  he,  "  can  retain  this  infernal  being 
in  fetters  whenever  he  pleases,  and  suffer  him  to  roam  at 
large  only  when  he  wills, — this  permission  of  the  Almighty 
is  the  same  as  if  it  were  his  own  act  and  deed.     For  to  per- 
mit what  you   can   prevent  is  the  same  as  to  perform." 
Now  cannot  God  equally  prevent  all  the  wickedness  of 
mankind?  But  does  he  prevent  it?     No.     In  the  sense  of 
Mr.  G.  he  permits  it :  that  is,  though  he  forbids  it,  he 
does  not  not  absolutely  prevent  it.     Is,  then,  all  the  sin  of 
mankind  to  be  charged  on  the  Almighty,  as  his  own  act 
and  deed  ?     3.  He  rather  proves,  than  disproves,  the  ex- 
istence of  the  devil ;  for  if  the  works  which  are  attributed 
to  God  are  in  the  same  sense  attributed  to  the  devil,  the 
latter  must  have  a  real  existence  as  well  as  the  former.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  impute  similar  works  to  the  best  and 
to  the  worst  of  beings,  but  not  to  each  in  the  same  sense, 
his  argument  proves  only  that  two  beings,  with  different 
designs,    and    therefore    both    intelligent,   are    employed 
among  mankind. 

But  to  prevent  the  mischief  which  his  observation  may 
in  another  way  eftect,  it  will  be  necessay  to  show,  1. 
That  Satan  tempts  men,  by  soliciting  them  to  sin ;  but 
that  God,  in  this  sense.  "  tempteth  no  man."  God  tempts 
them  as  he  tempted  Abraham,  by  putting  their  faith  to  a 


56  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   THE    DEVIL. 

severe  trial,  that  "  the  trial  of  their  faith  might  be  found 
unto  praise  and  honour  and  glory,  at  the  appearing  of 
Jesus  Christ."  2.  Bodily  disorders  may  have  been  in- 
flicted on  men  by  the  devil,  as  in  the  case  of  Job,  with 
intent  that  those  men  may  "curse  God  and  die."  But 
God  inflicts  them  often  as  a  salutary  chastisement ;  that, 
like  Job,  those  men  may  bless  God  and  live.  3.  The  wick- 
ed dispositions  and  conduct  of  men  are  imputed  to  the  devil, 
because  he  dehghts  in  wickedness ;  but  God  is  said  to  har- 
den their  hearts  ;  that  is,  to  give  them  up  to  judicial  hard- 
ness, because  their  wickedness  is  incorrigible.  4.  God  is 
said  to  send  on  some  "  a  strong  delusion  that  they 
should  believe  a  lie,  that  they  all  migiit  be  damned," 
and  thus,  not  "  to  promote  the  deceit  of  Satan,"  but  to 
give  up  to  him  as  incurable  those  "  who  beli-eved  not  the 
truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness." 

For  what  purpose  any  man,  calling  himself  a  Christian 
minister,  could  make  such  a  comparison  between  God  and 
the  devil,  without  any  explanation,  is  left  to  the  Searcher 
of  hearts  to  determine.  It  could  not  possibly  serve  his 
hypothesis ;  while  it  tends  to  undermine  the  credit  of 
divine  revelation.  Thus  do  some  men  "  sport  themselves 
M'ith  their  own  deceivings." 

III.  Mankind  have  undoubtedly  other  sources  of  temp- 
tation. "  Our  animal  passions  and  l>odily  appetites  expose 
us  to  innumerable  temptations."  (Vol.  i,  p.  71.)  But  Mr. 
G.'s  appeal  to  the  mercy  or  to  the  justice  of  God  is  by  no 
means  a  proof  that  these  are  the  only  means  of  our  proba- 
tion. In  the  present  case  such  an  appeal  is,  in  fact,  only 
an  appeal  from  sacred  Scripture  to  the  passions  of  mankind. 
If  Mr.  G.  grant  that,  in  the  dispensations  of  divine  Pro- 
vidence, we  meet  with  many  trials,  and  that,  unless  it  be 
our  own  fault,  those  trials  arc  salutjiry.  he  will  find  it 
difticult  to  prove  that  temptations  from  Satan  may  not  be 
in  general  equally  beneficial.  The  effects  which  the 
Scriptures  attribute  to  dial)olical  agency  he  attributes  to 
other  causes.  What  then  has  he  gained  ?  If  the  etfects, 
viz.,  the  number  and  weight  of  our  trials,  be  the  same, 
what  difiercnce  will  it  make  in  our  views  of  either  the 
justice  or  tlic  mercy  of  God  that  the  causes  are  many  or 
few,  that  th(>v  are  great  or  diminutive?  Where  is  the  in- 
justice of  calhng  a  moral  agent  to  a  combat,  in  which  he 


THE    EXIS1EXCE    OF   THE    DEVIL.  57 

may  be  "  more  than  conqueror?"  And  where  is  the  un- 
mercifulness  of  calling  him  to  endure  temptations,  in  the 
conquest  of  which  he  is  supereminently  "  blessed^"  and 
after  which  he  shall  "  receive  the  crown  of  life  ?" 

IV.  There  is  as  much  danger  from  the  breech  as  from 
the  mouth  of  Mr.  G.'s  cannon  :  its  recoil  is  as  destructive 
as  its  shot.  He  has  just  been  complaining  of  the  injustice 
and  cruelty  of  the  divine  dispensations  in  exposing  us  to 
the  temptations  of  the  devil ;  and  yet,  if  you  do  not  grant 
omnipresence,  omniscience,  and  omnipotence  to  the  devil, 
Satan  falls  beneath  his  contempt.  Then  "  all  his  super- 
human  powers  are  futile.  A  malicious  human  agent 
would  answer  every  purpose."  (Vol.  i,  p.  21.)  This 
argument  may  serve  for  an  answer  to  the  preceding. 
They  destroy  each  other.  In  the  meantime,  Mr.  G.  and 
his  readers  are  requested  once  more  to  consider,  whether, 
with  finite  creatures,  every  thing  be  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence which  is  not  absolutely  infinite. 

Should  the  impossibility  of  a  finite  being  tempting  many 
persons,  in  different  places,  at  one  time,  leave  an  apparent 
difficulty  on  this  subject  ;  it  must  be  noticed,  1.  That  the 
devil  has  many  demons  under  his  direction.  2.  That  we 
do  not  precisely  know  what  relation  a  spirit  has  to  place. 
3.  That  though  the  power  of  Satan  is  not  infinite,  it 
may  be  very  great.  4.  That  we  are  not  sure  that  evil 
spirits  may  not  produce  effects  which  often  remain  when 
those  spirits  are  no  longer  immediately  present.  We  know 
that  a  moral  principle,  once  imbibed,  often  produces  effects 
for  a  long  period  after  the  departure  of  the  person  from 
whom  it  has  been  imbibed. 

V.  Mr.  G.  thinks,  however,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
existence  of  the  devil  cannot  be  "  a  fundamental  article  in 
the  Christian  religion."  (Vol.  i,  p.  96.)  What  is  meant 
by  "  a  fundamental  article"  has  not  yet  been  agreed.  It 
is  enough  that  this  doctrine  enters  so  far  into  the  essence 
of  Christianity,  that  all  who  deny  the  existence  of  the 
devil  must  (as  they  actually  do)  deny  all  the  peculiar  and 
prominent  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament.  No  man  is 
properly  acquainted  with  the  condition  of  human  nature 
until  he  know  that  "the  whole  world  lieth  in  (td  Tovripu) 
the  wiclied  one."  1  John  v,  19.  Only  the  existence, 
operations,  and  success  of  the  devil,  can  properly  account 


58  THE    EXISTENCK    OF   THE    DEVIL. 

for  the  Incarnation  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  who 
came  to  bruise  the  serpent's  liead.  "  For  this  purpose  the 
Son  of  God  was  manifested  that  he  might  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil,"  1  John  iii,  8.  "When  the  children 
were  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  took 
part  of  the  same,  that  through  death  he  might  destroy 
lum  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil,"  Heb. 
ii,  14.  We  cannot  pray  as  we  ought,  unless  we  make  it  one 
of  our  petitions,  "  Deliver  us  from  [tov  Tvov-qpov)  the  wick- 
ed, or  evil  one,"  Matt,  vi,  13.  The  preachers  of  the  gos- 
pel do  not  execute  their  commission  unless  they  turn  men 
"  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God,"  Acts  xxvi,  18.  The 
encouraging  promise  of  the  gospel  is,  that  "  the  God  of 
peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under  our  feet  shortly,"  Rom. 
xvi,  20.  And  it  is  the  glory  of  a  Christian  to  "  have 
overcome  {tov  novripov")  the  wicked  one,"  1  John  ii,  14. 

VI.  "  What !  does  virtue  depend  upon  the  belief  of  a 
devil?"  (Vol.  i,  p.  101.)  Not  Socinian  virtue;  but  Chris- 
tian  virtue  depends  much  upon  it.  Christian  virtue  in- 
eludes  the  duties  of  "  believing"  the  truths  and  warnings- 
of  God  ;  of  "  watchfulness  and  prayer,  that  we  enter  not 
into  temptation  ;"  of  "  resisting  the  devil,  that  he  may  flee 
from  us;"  and  of  "overcoming  the  wicked  one."  Be- 
cause of  the  wiles  of  the  devil ;  because  we  are  opposed,, 
not  merely  by  "  flesh  and  blood,"  but  also  by  "  principali- 
ties and  powers,  and  by  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this 
world,  by  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places."  Christian 
virtue  consists  much  in  being  "  strong  in  the  Lord  and  in 
the  power  of  his  might,"  in  "  withstanding  in  the  evil 
day,"  in  having  our  loins  girt  about  with  truth,  in  having 
on  the  breastplate  of  righteousness,  in  having  our  feet 
shod  with  the  preparation  of  the  gospel  of  peace  ;  above 
all,  in  taking  the  shield  of  faith,  wherowitli  we  shall  be 
able  to  quench  ail  the  fiery  darts  (r^v  77ui),pot)  of  the 
wicked  one,  in  taking  the  lielniet  of  salvation,  and  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit  wliich  is  the  word  of  God  ;  and  in 
praying  always  with  all  prayer  and  supplication  in  the 
Spirit,  and  watching  thereunto  with  all  perseverance, 
Eph.  vi,  10-18. 

VII.  Nor  does  this  doctrine,  which  teaches  many 
Christian  duties  unknown  to  those  who  deny  it,  take  oflT 
from  man  his  responsibility.     We,  as  well  as    Mr.   G,, 


OF   THjE    UNITY    OF    GOD.  59 

"  warn  thee,  Christian,  not  to  ascribe  thy  crimes  to  the 
influence  of  an  infinitely  maUgnant,  irresistible,  omnipo- 
tent  being,  because  we  tell  thee  no  such  being  grists  in 
the  universe."  (Vol.  i,  p.  102.)  And  we  say  more  than 
Mr.  G.  will  care  to  say ;  viz.,  that  mankind  may  over- 
come "  that  old  serpent,  called  the  devil  and  Satan,  which 
deceiveth  the  whole  world,"  but  only  "  by  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb."  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  for  he  hath 
visited  and  redeemed  his  people,  and  hath  raised  up  a 
horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant  David, 
as  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  which 
have  been  since  the  world  began ;  that  we  should  be 
saved  from  our  enemies,  and  from  the  hand  of  all  that 
hate  us ;  to  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers, 
and  to  remember  his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he 
sware  to  our  father  Abraham,  that  he  would  grant  unto  us, 
that  we,  being  delivered  out  of  the  hands  of  our  enemies, 
might  serve  him  without  fear,  in  holiness  and  righteous- 
ness before  him,  all  the  days  of  our  life." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Of  the  Unity  of  God. 

The  first  chapter  of  this  work  will  serve  to  show  how 
little  dependence  is  to  be  placed  on  the  deductions  of  hu- 
man reason,  unaided  by  divine  revelation.  Mr.  G.'s 
arguments  on  the  divine  unity  amply  confirm  those  which 
have  been  there  adduced.  Through  every  paragraph  of 
his  lecture  on  that  subject,  while  he  professes  to  deduce 
his  doctrine  from  the  light  of  nature,  he  either  takes  for 
granted  the  thing  to  be  proved,  or  borrows  his  doctrine 
from  the  Scriptures  ;  and  sometimes  he  does  both  at  once. 
An  examination  of  his  ridiculous  reasonings  will,  however, 
answer  no  purpose,  since  we  are  ready  to  grant  what  he 
contends  for — that  there  is  but  one  God.  But  we  place 
this  great  truth  on  the  ground  of  revelation  only.  The 
following  passages  may  suffice  to  demonstrate  it  : — 

"  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  Exod. 
XX,  3.  '^The  Lord  he  is  God,  there  is  none  else  beside 
him."     "The  Lord,  he  is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon 


60  OF    THE    UNITY    OF    GOD. 

the  earth  beneath  ;  and  there  is  none  else,"  Deut.  iv,  35, 
39.  •'  Is  there  a  God  beside  me  ?  yea,  there  is  no  god  ;  I 
know  not  any.  They  that  make  a  graven  image  are  all 
of  them  vanity."  ''  13efore  me  there  was  no  god  formed, 
neither  shall  there  be  after  me.  I,  even  I,  am  the  Lord  ; 
and  beside  me  there  is  no  Saviour.  I  have  saved,  and  I 
have  showed,  when  there  was  no  strange  god  among  you," 
Isa.  xhv,  8,  10-12.  "  The  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord," 
Deut.  vi,  4. 

Such  are  the  declarations  of  Scripture  that  there  is  but 
one  God.  The  candid  reader  will  observe,  however,  that 
these  testimonies  uniformly  go  to  evince  the  oneness  of 
God  in  contradistinction  from  the  plurality  of  the  gods  of 
the  heathen.  But  the  metaphysical  unity  of  God,  a  unity 
which  excludes  the  possibility  of  any  kind  of  distinction 
in  the  divine  nature,  is  not  in  any  of  them,  or  in  any  other 
part  of  the  sacred  books,  asserted. 

As  we  do  not  look  into  the  book  of  nature  for  the  proof 
of  the  divine  unity,  we  do  not  expect  to  learn  from  thence 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  We  confess  to  Mr.  G.  that 
we  have  no  "  plea  from  reason  for  the  supposition  that 
one  must  direct,  a  second  execute,  and  a  third  influence." 
(Lect.  vol.  i,  p.  11.)  All  that  we  know  of  God,  we  know 
only  from  his  own  revelation  ;  and  from  that  very  source 
from  whence  we  learn  that  God  is  one,  we  learn  also  that 
God  is  three;  one  in  one  sense,  three  in  another,  not  in- 
compatible with  the  first.  While  therefore  we  agree  with 
Mr.  G.  in  that  grand  proposition  that  there  is  one  God, 
we  differ  from  his  metaphysical  doctrine  of  divine  unity. 
Thinking  that  he  perfectly  compreliends  that  unity,  and 
that,  without  the  aid  of  revelation  from  whicli.  in  point  of 
fact,  he  has  learned  it,  he  can  argue  conclusively  upon  it, 
he  accordingly  sets  himself  to  the  metaphysical  task.  Wc 
are  aware  tliat  we  do  not  perfectly  jjpi)rehend  the  meta- 
physical ideas  of  spirit  and  its  unity  ;  and  as  we  cannot  be 
sure  that  we  reason  conclusively  on  a  proposition  which 
we  do  not  distinctly  and  perfectly  apprehend,  like  children 
under  the  instruction  of  a  teacher,  wc  submit  ourselves  to 
th^  direction  of  our  infallible  guide,  and  learn  the  doctrine 
of  the  trinity  from  the  same  source  from  whence  we  have 
learned  the  divine  imity.  It  is  from  thence  we  gather  that 
the  one  God  is  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 


OF    TH«    UNITY    OF    GOD.  61 

It  is  enough,  in  this  place,  to  state  that  our  Lord,  in 
giving  a  commission  to  his  disciples,  commanded  them, 
"Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptising  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  Matt,  xxviii,  19. 

The  baptism  of  Christian  believers  is  an  ordinance 
obviously  designed  to  initiate  them  into  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  intended,  like  circumcision,  as  a  dedication  of 
their  persons  to  God.  It  implies  on  the  part  of  the  per- 
son baptized  that  he  take  the  Christian  God  for  his  God, 
and  that  he  devote  himself  to  that  God  as  his  servant ;  and 
thus  that  h^  enter  into  covenant  wiiii  him. 

When  the  apostles  of  Christ  baptized  the  Jews,  who, 
dedicated  to  Jehovah  by  Jewish  baptism  and  circumcision, 
had  already  been  initiated  into  the  church  of  God,  and 
had  received  from  the  Old  Testament  "  the  promise  of  the 
Father,"  viz.,  the  promise  of  the  gift  of  his  Holy  Spirit, 
they  baptized  them  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  In  vain,  there- 
fore,  does  Mr.  G.  cite  the  cases  of  Cornelius  and  of  the 
believers  at  Ephesus  to  prove  that  the  apostles  did  not  bap- 
tize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  but  in  the  name  of  Jesus  ;  for  Cornelius  was 
probably  a  Jewish  proselyte,  (Acts  x,  22,)  and  the  Ephe- 
sians  had  already  been  baptized  "  unto  John's  baptism," 
Acts  xix,  3.  The  commission  which  our  Lord  gave  to 
his  apostles  was  "  to  all  nations,"  i.  e.,  to  the  Gentiles,  to 
whom  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been 
equally  unknown.  These  were  to  be  baptized  according 
to  the  commission  which  Jesus  Christ  had  given  ;  and  the 
apostles  undoubtedly  observed  the  charge  which  had  been 
committed  to  them. 

This  form  of  baptism  was  connected  with  the  first  in- 
structions which  the  Gentile  converts  were  to  receive,  and 
therefore  implies  the  doctrine  which  they  were  to  learn. 
That  they  whom  the  apostles  had  called  from  the  worship 
of  idols  to  the  worship  of  the  one  God  who  made  heaven 
and  earth,  should,  by  a  religious  act,  a  reception  of  the 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  be  dedicated  to  any  being 
less  than  God,  would,  the  Socinians  being  judges,  have 
been  only^a  change  from  one  form  of  idolatry  to  another. 
But  this  was  not  the  case.  They  were  baptized  not  in  the 
names,  but  in  the  one  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 

6 


62  THE    PRE-EXISTENCE    OF   JESU6    CHRIST. 

the  Holy  Ghost ;  from  which  we  infer  that  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  the  one  God  to  whom  we 
are  to  be  devoted,  and  on  whom  all  our  Christian  hopes 
are  to  be  fixed. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Of  the  Pre-eocistence  and  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 

That  Jesus  Christ  was  truly  and  properly  a  man,  and 
that  the  doctrine  of  \i\s  proper  humanity  may  be  traced 
through  all  the  New  Testament,  is  undeniable.  The  So- 
cinians  invariably  take  advantage  of  this  truth,  and  argue 
from  it  that  he  is  a  mere  man.  This  in  a"  controversy 
with  Trinitarians  is  flatly  begging  the  question,  which  is 
not.  Is  Jesus  Christ  a  man  ?  but.  Is  he  a  man  only  ?  That 
he  is  a  man,  we  grant ;  but  we  contend  that  he  is  also  more 
than  man  :  that  he  is  the  one  eternal  God. 

To  separate  the  question  of  his  proper  divinity  from 
the  doctrine  of  his  humanity,  let  it  first  be  understood 
that,  according  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  Scripture,  he 
had  an  existence  previous  to  his  incarnation.  Such  a 
pre-existent  state  Mr.  G.  positively  denies,  and  daringV 
asserts  that  "we  nowhere  meet  with  any  express  decla- 
ration of  it."  (Lect.  vol.  i,  p.  455.)  With  what  degree 
of  truth  this  assertion  is  made,  the  following  citations  will 
sliow  : — 

1.  "  He  was  made  flesh,"  John  i,  14.  "As  the  chil- 
dren  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  like- 
wise took  part  of  the  same."  "For  verily  he  took  not  on 
(him)  the  nature  of  angels  ;  but  he  took  on  (him)  the  seed 
of  Ahraliam,"  Hob.  ii,  14,  16.  These  expressions  involve 
the  idea  that  there  was  a  pre-existent  something  which 
was  made  flesh,  and  which  took  part  of  human  nature. 

2.  Jesus  Christ  says,  that  "  he  came  down  from  hea- 
ven," that  "became  from  above,"  John  iii,  18,  31  ;  "that 
he  was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God,"  John  xiii,  3 ; 
that  lie  "  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  came  into  the 
world,  and  would  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father," 
John  xvi,  28.  He  is  therefore  said  to  be  not  "  of  the 
earth,  earthy,"  but  "  the  Lord  from  heaven,"  1  Cor.  xv,  47. 


THE    PRE-EXISVENCE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.  63 

Mr.  G.,  with  all  his  efforts,  has  not  been  able  to  invali- 
date this  evidence.  (Vol.  i,  p.  342.)  John  the  Baptist 
was  a  man  "sent  from  God"  to  men,  (as  he  observgg,)  but 
he  was  not  sent  from  heaven  to  earth.  What  Jesus  Christ 
asserts  of  himself  he  denies  of  all  others  :  "  No  man  hath 
ascended  up  to  heaven  but  he  that  came  down  from  hea- 
ven, even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven."  And 
John  conceded  to  Jesus  his  exclusive  claim  :  "  He  that 
Cometh  from  above  (said  he)  is  above  all :  he  that  is  of 
the  earth  is  earthly,  and  speakelh  of  the  earth,"  John  iii, 
13,  31.  The  baptism  of  John  is  said  to  be  from  heaven, 
because  he  baptized  by  divine  authority ;  but  it  is  no- 
where  said  that  John  came  down  from  heaven.  Again  : 
the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  from  heaven  is  compared  with 
liis  return  thither.  To  this  Mr.  G.  objects,  "  If  our  Sa- 
viour,  by  descending  from  heaven,  literally  meant  a  per- 
sonal descent,  by  ascending  into  heaven  he  meant  a 
personal  ascent ;  and,  by  being  in  heaven,  he  meant  a 
personal  presence  there,  at  the  same  time  that  he  was 
talking  with  Nicodemus  upon  earth."  (Vol.  i,  p.  343.) 
This  argument,  by  which  Mr.  G.,  if  he  mean  to  prove 
any  thing,  endeavours  to  prove  that  our  Lord  contradicted 
himself,  is  the  very  argument  by  which  one  would  prove 
the  doctrine  in  question.  The  pre-existent  and  divine 
nature  of  Jesus  Christ  solves  the  difficulty  which  he  has 
imagined,  and  unties  the  knot  which  he  finds  it  more  con- 
venient to  cut. 

3.  When  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world,  he  came 
"  voluntarily."  "  When  he  cometh  into  the  world,  he 
saith.  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body 
hast  thou  prepared  me.  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God,"  Heb.  X,  5-7.  This  proves  that  he  existed  before 
he  came  into  the  world,  and  before  he  took  on  him  the 
body  prepared  for  him,  and  that  he  took  on  him  that  body 
with  his  own  previous  consent. 

4.  Jesus  Christ  prayed,  "  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was,"  John  xvii,  5.  Here  Mr. 
G.  has  two  strings  to  his  bow.  (1.)  He  cites,  by  way  of 
contrast,  the  following  passages  : — "  The  Lamb  siain  from 
the  foun<3ation  of  the  world."  "Who  hath  saved  us — 
according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace  which  was  given 


64  THE    PRE-EXISTENCE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

US  in  Christ  Jesus,  before  the  world  began."  "He  hath 
chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.'' 
(Vol.  i,  p.  345.)  Now  every  one  of  these  passages 
proves,  indirectly,  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ. 
If  Jesus  Christ  was,  in  the  purpose  of  God,  "slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,"  and  yet  came  voluntarily 
into  the  world,  to  "  do  the  will  of  God"  by  "  offering  his 
body  once  for  all,"  Heb.  x,  10,  and  therefore  was  not 
slain  without  his  own  consent, — he  consented  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  to  be  slain.  If,  before  the  world 
began,  when  we  had  no  personal  existence,  we  were 
chosen  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  had  grace  given  us  in  him, 
— he  then  existed  in  whom,  as  our  representative  and 
head,  we  were  chosen,  and  in  whom  grace  was  given  to 
us.  But  we  will  try  again  :  (2.)  "Whatever- be  the  glory 
of  which  Jesus  speaks  as  applicable  to  himself,  in  the  very 
same  chapter  he  ascribes  to  his  disciples."  (Vol.  i,  p.  346.) 
Thus  Jesus  Christ  is  robbed  of  the  peculiarity  of  his  future, 
as  well  as  of  his  past  glory.  But,  first  :  It  is  not  true  that 
the  apostles  have  now  a  glory  equal  to  that  of  Him  \vho 
has  "  a  name  that  is  above  every  name."  Secondly  :  If 
they  have  it  now,  had  they,  like  him,  this  glory  with  the 
Father  "  before  the  world  was  ?"  How  then  did  Jesus 
Christ  give  it  to  them  before  the  world  was,  unless  he  then 
possessed  it  ?     See  John  xvii,  24. 

5.  Jfjsus  Christ  said,  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am," 
John  viii,  58.  The  force  of  this  passage  Mr.  G.  has 
completely  evaded  by  attempting  to  show  that,  on  similar 
occasions,  our  translators  have  affixed  the  pronoun  ho, 
and  to  persuade  us  that  there  is  the  same  reason  for  it 
here.  But  in  tho  present  case  the  question  which  Jesus 
answered  was  precisely  the  question  of  his  pre-existence. 
The  Jews  said  unto  him,  "  Thou  art^not  yet  fifty  years 
old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraliam?  Jesus  said  unto  them. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am." 
To  render  it,  I  am  he,  would  only  encumber  the  answer, 
while  the  difliculty  is  tiie  same,  and  can  only  be  solved  by 
the  supposition  of  his  pre-existence.  How  could  Jesus 
have  seen  Abraham,  if  Im  were  not  contemporary  with 
Abraham  ?  Why  does  he  speak  in  the  present  tense  of 
himself,  and  in  the  past  of  Abraham?  And  once  more  : 
if,  when  Jesus  said,  I  am,  he  spoke  of  his  predetermined 


THE    PKE-EXIS|TENCE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  65 

existence,  how  could  a  mere  predetermination  of  his  ex- 
istence  render  him  capable  of  seeing  Abraham? 

6.  We  cannot  do  justice  to  this  subject  withojit  sub- 
joining the  testimony  of  the  Evangelist  John.  "  In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God,"  John  i,  12.  Mr.  G.  has  conceded  that  if  we  "  under- 
stand by  the  term  beginning" — "the  beginning  of  the 
creation,"  this  "  accords  with  his  interpretation  of  the 
Logos  (the  Word.")  (Vol.  i,  pp.  195,  196.)  Thus  all  is 
granted  for  which  we  contend  :  with  this  proviso,  how- 
ever, that  we  do  not  say,  In  the  beginning  the  word  began, 
but  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  To  prevent  all 
mischief  to  the  Proteus,  Socinianism,  Mr.  G.  has  taken 
care  to  give  a  second  interpretation  to  the  term  "  begin- 
ning." He  holds  that  he  "may  be  allowed  to  understand 
by  it  the  beginning  of  the  new  creation."  But  St.  John 
does  not  allow  it.  He  says  that  "  he  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God  ;" — that  "  he  was  the  light  which  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world  :" — that  "  he  was 
made  flesh,"  and  therefore  existed  before  he  was  made 
flesh  ;  and  that  "  he  was  before  him"  (John,)  John  i,  2,  9, 
14,  15,  30,  though  born  after  him.  Now  all  this  is  per- 
fectly inconsistent  with  the  application  of  this  expression 
to  the  new  creation. 

The  distinct  question  no^v^  to  be  answered  is.  Who,  and 
what  is  he,  who,  independent  of  all  humanity,  existed  before 
his  incarnation  ? 

The  Scriptures  expressly  state  that,  in  his  pre-existent 
nature,  he  was  "  the  Word  of  God,"  "  the  brightness  of 
the  glory  of  God,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person." 
Under  these  high  names  and  titles,  which  it  is  not  neces- 
sary here  to  explain,  he  is  represented  as  the  Creator  of 
the  world.  There  is,  it  is  acknowledged,  a  new  creation, 
the  regeneration  of  mankind ;  of  which,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  he  is  the  author.  Mr.  G.  thinks  that 
if  we  "keep  this  in  view  in  those  passages  which  refer 
creation  to  our  Saviour,  we  shall  find  that  a  spiritual  cre- 
ation is  invariably  meant."  (Vol.  i,  p.  341.)  We  will 
make  the  experiment. 

1.  St.  "John  says,    "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  and 
dwelt  among  us,"  John  i,  14.      Of  this  Word  he  says, 
6* 


66  THE    DIVI>ITY    or   JF.SUS    CUEIST. 

"  All  things  were  made  by  him ;  and  without  him  was 
not  any  thing  made  that  was  made."  Again  :  "  He  was 
in  the  world,  and  the  world  [cyevsTo)  was  made  by  him, 
even  the  world  which  knew  him  not,"  John  i,  3,  10.  To 
surmount  this  difficulty,  Mr.  G.  appeals  to  the  "new  ver- 
sion," in  which  the  Socinians,  to  exemplify  the  versatility 
of  their  talents,  and  their  expertness  in  the  art  of  interpo- 
lation, render  this  same  word,  in  tlie  former  passage,  "done," 
and  in  the  latter,  "  was,"  adding  the  word  enlightened. 
We  need  not  a  better  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  set  aside  the  plainest  declarations  of  Scripture,  by 
foisting  in  any  word  which  will  answer  their  purpose  !  A 
translation  may  be  made  which  will  admit  such  a  Soci- 
nian  interpolation  ;  but  the  original  Greek,  untranslated, 
absolutely  forbids  it.  The  verb  to  be,  when,  it  means  to 
exist,  may  be  a  translation  of  yivofiai.  But  yivofiai,  like  the 
English  verb  to  exist,  is  not  the  auxiliary  verb  by  which 
the  passive  verb  is  formed.  According  to  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  St.  John's  words,  "All  things  were  (existed)  by  him," 
and  "  the  world  was  (existed)  by  him." 

2.  The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  of  him  as  "  being 
the  brightness  of  the  glory  (of  God,)  and  the  express  image 
of  his  person,"  Heb,  i,  3  ;  and  attributes  to  him  the  crea- 
tion. "By  whom  also  he  made  tlie  world,"  Heb.  i,  2. — 
Will  Mr.  G.  say  that  the  Christian  world  is  meant  ?  Let 
him  read  the  following  verses,  "  But  unto  the  Son  he 
sailh.  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy 
hands.  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  remainest  ;  and  they 
all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment ;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt 
thou  fold  them  up,  and  they  shall  be  changed,"  Heb.  i,  2, 
3,  8-12.  Here  are  two  plain  proofs  that  the  literal  crea- 
tion is  meant.  (1.)  The  apostle  decjares  that  the  worlds 
which  he  created  are  "  the  earths''  and  "  the  heavens." 
(2.)  He  declares  that  the  worlds  wliich  he  made  shall  "wax 
old,"  "  be  changed,"  and  "  perish."  All  this  is  perfectly 
true  of  the  material  worlds  ;  but  the  new  creation  abidetli 
for  ever. 

3.  Let  us  hear  the  apostlie  to  the  Colossians  :  "  His 
dear  Son. — who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
first-born  of  every  creature  ;  for  by  him  were  all  things 
created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible 


THE    DIVITMTY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  67 

and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or 
principalities,  or  powers  :  all  things  were  created  by  him, 
and  for  him  :  and  he  is  before  all  things,"  Col.  i^3-ll. 
Mr.  G.  says,  "  A  thought  has  been  suggested  by  the  late 
Dr.  W.  Harris,  that  the  word  irporoTOKoc,  by  a  change  in 
the  accent,  is  sometimes  used  by  profane  writers,  not  in 
a  passive,  but  an  active  sense.  Thus  some  would  render 
it,  not  the  first-born,  but  the  beginner,  or  the  first  bringer- 
forth,  the  immediate  cause  of  all  things  in  the  new  crea- 
tion." (Vol.  i,  p.  340.)  So  Mr.  G.  has  answered  the 
argument  which  he  has  elsewhere  (vol.  i,  p.  354)  drawn 
from  this  word,  "  first-born."  But  why  apply  the  words 
only  to  the  new  creation  ?  The  apostle  says,  "  All  things 
were  created  by  him."  If  we  understand  that  passage 
literall)r,  we  have  some  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  "  heaven 
and  earth,"  and  "  all  things  that  are  in  them."  We  can 
distinguish  between  things  "  visible  and  invisible ;"  and 
can  suppose  that  the  rest  of  the  apostle's  expressions  re- 
late to  the  heavenly  hierarchies.  But  if  all  this  be  said 
of  what  Mr.  G.  calls  "  a  spiritual  creation,"  or  of  the  re- 
generation of  the  Christian  world,  how  are  we  to  apply 
these  terms  ?  Are  we  to  understand  by  things  in  heaven 
and  on  earth,  the  spii'itualities,  and  the  temporalities  of 
the  church  ?  Then  he  is  the  author  of  the  good  livings. 
Do  the  things  visible  find  invisible  mean  the  bodies  and  the 
souls  of  mankind  ?  Then,  at  least,  mankind  are  not  all 
matter:  nor  is  this  creation  all  "spiritual."  But  what 
arc  the  thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  and  powers? 
Are  they  metropolitans,  bishops,  deans,  and  vicars  ?  Some 
such  explanation  will  follow.  But  why  then  do  the  Uni- 
tarians set  themselves  as  violently  against  the  Episcopa- 
lian hierarchy,  as  against  the  divinity  of  Him  from  whom 
they  suppose  it  to  have  originated  ? 

The  creation  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ,  as  it  is  an 
unanswerable  proof  of  his  pre-existence,  is  equally  a  de- 
monstration of  his  supreme  godhead.  The  Socinian.^; 
themselves  grant,  that  he  is  the  "Author,  and  the 
Finisher  of  a  new  creation."  But  if,  with  the  Apostle 
Peter,  while  we  expect  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  will 
come,  in^the  which  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with 
a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent 
heat ;    the  earth   also,  and  the   works  that  are  therein^ 


68  THE    DIVINITY    OF   JE3US    CHRIST. 

shall  be  burned  up— «we  also,  according  to  his  promise,  look 
for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  2  Pet.  iii,  10-13;  il" 
we  look  for  a  new  creation  of  our  souls  in  the  image  of 
God,  and  of  our  bodies,  which  shall  be  fashioned  like  unto 
his  glorious  body ;  we  must  allow  that  wisdom  and  power, 
no  less  than  were  employed  in  the  old  creation,  will  be 
necessary  to  realize  our  expectations.  Whether,  there- 
fore, he  be  the  Author  of  the  old  or  of  the  new  creation  ; 
or,  as  we  believe,  of  both  ; — "  he  that  built  all  things," 
whether  the  edifice  of  the  universe,,  or  that  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church, — "  is  God,"    Heb.  iii,  4. 

Taking  Mr.  G.  for  our  guide  to  truth  as  far  as  he  is 
willing  to  go,  we  shall  now  embrace  the  full  advantage 
of  his  own  important  concession.  In  explaining  St.  John's 
doctrine  on  the  incarnation  of  "  the  Word  q(  God,"  he 
says,  "  He  (S-t.  John)  introduces  the  Messenger  of  the 
covenant,  the  Messiah,  by  saying  that  the  perfections  of 
Deity  became  flesh ;  were  imparted  to  a  real  man.  To 
this  man  he  proceeds  to  ascribe  the  possession  of  light, 
and  life,  and  divine  perfections."     (Vol.  i,  p.  200.) 

"  Great  is  truth,  and  will  prevail?"  To  grant  divine 
perfections  to  the  Son  of  God,  is  to  confess,  in  spite  of 
Socinianism,  his  proper  and  supreme  divinity.  Before 
we  argue  this  point,  however,  let  us  inquire.  What  are  the 
divine  perfections  which  "  are  ascribed"  to  him  ? 

1.  Uiiheginning  existence,  or  proper  eternity.  "  But 
thou,  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  out  of  thee  shall  He  come 
forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel;  whose  goings 
forth  (have  been)  from  of  old,  from  everlasting,"  jMic.  v,  2. 

2.  Omnipresence.  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  Matt,  xxviii,  20.  "  For 
where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  in  tiie  midst  of  them,"  Matt,  xviii,  20.  "  That 
Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts,"  Eph.  iii,  17.  Mr.  G. 
argues  concerning  tl»e  devil,  that  if  he  is  everywliere,  at 
all  times  present  with  you,  he  is  possessed  of  "  tiie  divine 
attribute  of  omnipresence."  (Vol.  i,  p.  19.)  The  infer- 
ence  is  equally  just,  with  respect  to  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  Omniscience.  "  He  know  all;  and  needed  not  that 
any  should  testify  of  man  :  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man," 
John  ii,  24,  25.  "  Lord,  thou  knowost  all  things."  Min 
xxi,    17.     Mr.  G.,    when  the  devil  is  the  subject  of  his 


THE    DIVINtTV    OF   JESLS    CHKIST.  69 

argument,  asks,  "  Does  he  not  dive  into  your  most  secret 
thoughts?  Has  he  not  access  to  your  hearts ?  What  is 
this  but  the  divine  attribute  of  omniscience  ?"  (^ol.  i, 
p.  19.) 

4.  Omnipotence.  "  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body, 
that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  ac- 
cording to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  sub- 
due all  things  unto  himself,"  Phil,  iii,  21.  "  Omnipo- 
tence (Mr.  G.  says)  is  a  power  of  control  over  all  other 
beings."     (Vol.  i,'  p.  12.) 

5.  Immutability.  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday, 
and  to-day,  and  for  ever,"  Heb.  xiii,  8. 

6.  All  the  divine  perfections.  "  All  things  that  the 
Father  hath  are  mine,"  John  xvi,  15. 

Such  are  the  divine  perfections  which  the  sacred  writers 
attribute  to  the  Son  of  God.  The  Socinians  suppose  him 
to  possess  these  divine  perfections,  without  possessing  the 
divine  nature.  It  may  serve  an  hypothesis  for  a  theolo- 
gian  to  make  a  mental  abstraction  of  the  one  from  the 
other,  and  to  imagine  them  disposable  at  his  discretion ; 
but  in  so  doing  he  ought  to  know  that  his  imagination  has 
created  what  has  no  real  existence. 

1.  What  idea  have  we  of  God,  but  of  his  perfections? 
The  complex  idea  which  we  have  of  any  being,  is  the  ag. 
gregate  of  our  ideas  of  its  known  qualities.  What  is 
eternal,  omnipresent,  omniscient,  omnipotent,  immutable, 
and  all-perfect  being,  but  God  ?  Remove  these  attri- 
butes,  and  the  word  being,  and  the  idea  which  it  conveys, 
if  any,  is  applicable  to  realities  or  nonentities,  to  any 
thing  or  nothing ;  and  depends  entirely  on  the  ideas  we 
attach  to  it.  Being  without  attributes,  is  nothing  ;  and 
wherever  the  attributes  are,  there  the  being  is.  God  is 
his  perfections;   and  his  perfections  are  God. 

2.  If  God  be  supposed  to  delegate  his  perfections  to 
another  being,  what  is  supposed  to  become  of  his  godhead? 
Is  he  any  longer  God,  when  he  has  so  disposed  of  his  eter- 
nity, omnipresence,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  immuta- 
bility, and  all  his  perfections  ?  Thus  the  Socinians  rob 
the  Father  of  his  divinity! 

3.  If  Q£>d  give  his  perfections  to  another  being ;  then 
that  being  is  God.  As  the  Socinians  suppose  that  the 
Father  gave  his  perfections  to  the  human  nature  of  Jesus 


70  THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

Christ,  they  thus  suppose  the  human  nature  converted 
into  the  divine !  Let  them  then  take  to  themselves  the 
absurdity  which  they  falsely  impute  to  us. 

4.  If  the  divine  perfections  can  be  divided  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  then  they  are  divine  perfections 
no  longer  ;  because  the  line  of  division  describes  a  bound- 
ary,  and  a  boundary  is  inconsistent  with  infinitude.  Then 
neither  the  Father,  nor  the  Son  is  God  ;  for  neither  of 
them  has  infinite  perfections.  The  Socinians  thus  rob 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son  ! 

5.  If  they  suppose  that  divine  perfections  are  not 
diminished  by  division,  and  that  the  Father  gives  to  the 
human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  his  own  perfections,  and 
yet  retains  them  ;  then  they  make  two  Gods  instead  of  one. 

6.  But  tlie  divine  perfections  cannot  be  possessed  with- 
out  the  divine  nature.  To  men,  who  are  but  finite  beings, 
God  can  give  a  beginning,  dependent,  finite,  and  stable 
existence.  He  can  make  them  knowing,  wise,  and  pow- 
erful. But  (with  reverence)  he  cannot  give  to  them  his 
infinite  perfections.  Their  minds  are  finite,  and  therefore 
incapable  of  infinitude.  If  Jesus  Christ  were  a  mere 
man,  he  could  not  possess  the  divine  perfections,  because 
as  a  mere  man,  he  is  a  mere  finite  being.  To  possess  the 
infinite  perfections  of  Deity,  he  must  possess  bis  infinite 
nature.  Can  a  being  who  began  to  exist  be  without  be- 
ginning?  Can  a  being  who  is  necessarily  limited  be 
omnipresent  ?  Can  any  thing  less  than  an  infinite  mind 
know  all  things  ?  Can  any  but  an  "  uncontrolled  and  all- 
controlling  mind"  be  omnipotent  ?  Nor  can  any  thing  but 
an  all-perfect  mind  be  immutable.'  In  attributing  divine 
perfections  to  the  Son  of  God,  the  Socinians  do,  therefore, 
implicitly,  if  not  explicitly,  attribute  to  him  proper  divi- 
nity  ;  for  there  can  be  no  divinity  mipre  proper  than  that 
which  possesses  divine  perfections. 

7.  When  the  Socinians  are  not  immediately  engaged 
in  impugning  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  can  per- 
ceive the  truth  of  these  observations.  Thus  Mr.  G.,  after 
enumerating  the  supposed  infinite  attributes  of  tiie  devil, 
says,  "  These  attributes  are  all  divine.  And  if  there  ac- 
tually be  a  being  possessing  these  attributes,  that  being 
ought  to  be  a  Deity."     (Vol.  i,  p.  20.) 

8.  The  sacred  writers,  while  thev  attribute  to  the  Son 


THE    DIVInAtY    of  JESUS    CHRIST.  71 

of  God  the  divine  perfections,  are  consistent,  and  confirm 
our  argument  by  attributing  to  him  the  divine  nature, 
"  For  it  pleased  (the  Father)  that  in  him  shorftd  all 
fulness  dwell,"  Col.  i,  19.  "  For  in  him  dvvelleth  all  the 
fulness  of  the  godhead  bodily,"  Col.  ii,  9  :  (or,  as  Dr. 
Doddridge  says,  substantially  :  the  word  being  used  figu- 
ratively,  and  including  all  the  Deity,  as  the  word  boddy  im- 
plies the  whole  corporeal  part  of  man.)  To  this  Mr.  G. 
objects:  (1.)  "  It  pleased  the  Father."  (Vol.  i,  p.  344.) 
He  does  not  speak  out.  Does  he  mean  to  object  that  the 
dwelling  of  the  godhead  in  the  human  nature  was  dependent 
on  tlie  will  of  the  Father  ?  We  grant  it.  But  this  does  not 
disprove  the  fact.  (3.)  He  urges  that  "  whatever  this  ful- 
ness means,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  not  peculiar  to  Christ, 
but  might  be  possessed  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus  ;  '  that  ye 
might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God?'  "  To  this  we 
answer  that  the  fulness  of  the  Deity  does  dwell  in  Christ, 
in  a  manner  peculiar  to  him.  First,  the  Scriptures  every- 
where make  an  important  distinction,  the  purport  of  which 
is,  that  the  Deity  dwells  primarily  in  Christ,  but  only  in  a 
secondary  sense  in  us  :  i.  e.,  that  whereas  God  dwells 
immediately  in  him,  he  dwells  in  us  mediately,  through 
Christ,  and  by  virtue  of  our  union  with  Christ.  Thus  we 
are  made  "  a  habitation  of  God,  through  the  Spirit,"  by 
being  "  built  on  Jesus  Christ,  the  chief  corner  stone," 
Eph.  ii,  20,  22.  We  are  "  tilled  e(f,  into*  all  the  fulness 
of  God,"  when  "  Christ  dwells  in  our  hearts  by  faith," 
Eph.  iii,  17,  19.  We  are  but  the  members  of  his  mysti* 
cal  body,  the  church,  of  which  he  is  the  head.  "  Now  ye 
are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular,"  1  Cor. 
xiii,  27.  But  God  hath  given  him  (to  be)  the  head  over 
all  (things)  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  (who  is)  the 
fulness  of  him  that  fiUeth  all  in  all,"  Eph.  i,  22,  23.  As 
the  spirit  of  man  is  supposed  to  be  immediately  united 
with  the  head,  the  Deity  is  immediately  united  with  him. 
He  is,  in  his  human  nature,  "the  head,"  who  is,  in  his 
divine  nature,  at  the  same  time,  "  the  fulness  of  him  that 

♦  The  Greek  reads,  EIS  -irav  to  TrXtipuiia  rov  Beov :  into  all  the  ful- 
ness ol'  God.  So  the  Socinians  have  rendered  it  in  the  margin 
of  their  "  improved  version."  The  allusion  may  possibly  be  to  a 
vessel  plunged  into  the  ocean,  and  which  is  at  once  filled  and  im- 
mersed :  it  is  fiiled  into  the  fulness  of  the  sea. 


72  THE    DIVINITY    OF    JKSUS    CHRIST. 

fiUeth  all  in  all."  As  the  spirit  of  man  dwells  mediately 
and  in  a  secondary  sense  in  the  members,  which  are 
thereby  vivified  and  actuated,  by  virtue  of  their  union 
with  the  head  in  which  it  primarily  and  immediately 
dwells;  so  "of  his  fulness  have  we  all  received,  and  grace 
for  grace,"  John  i,  16.  Secondly,  The  fulness  of  the 
godhead  dwells  in  him.  "  That  in  all  things  he  might 
have  the  pre-eminence,  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him 
should  all  fulness  dwell."  So  says  Mr.  G.,  as  well  as  St. 
Paul.  "  In  Jesus  Christ,"  says  the  former,  "  bodily,  as  a 
man,  the  fulness  of  Deity  did  reside.  He  possessed  the 
Spirit  without  measure."  (Vol.  i,  p.  344.)  (It  is  true, 
he  endeavours  to  contradict  this  position,  by  calling  the 
fulness  of  the  Deity  "full  and  complete  divine  powers." 
Such  is  tlie  effect  of  Socinian  bondage  !  Bxit  the  confes- 
sion was  extorted  by  the  se'erity  of  truth.)  We,  on  the 
other  hand,  only  participate  (so  to  speak)  the  divine  ful- 
ness,  as  it  pleases  Jesus  Christ  to  impart  it.  "  Unto  every 
one  of  us  is  given  grace  according  to  the  measure  of  the 
gift  of  Christ,"  Eph.  iv,  7.  "  In  him  dwelt  all  the  fulness 
of  the  godhead  substantially."  We  are  "  filled  with  him  :" 
"  filled,"  according  to  our  capacity,  not  with,  but  tig,  "  into 
all  the  fulness  of  God."* 

9.  In  connection  with  this  doctrine  of  the  plenitude  of 
the  godhead  in  Christ,  we  are  now  to  consider  their  union 
with  each  other.  "  I  and  the  Father,"  said  Jesus  Christ, 
"  are  one,"  John  x,  30.  This  union  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  Mr.  G.  affects  to  place  on  a  level  with  "  the  oneness 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles."  (Vol.  i,  p,  329.)  The  sacred 
writers  will  settle  this  point. 

"  The  head  of  every  man  is  Christ ;  and  the  head  of  the 
woman  is  the  man ;  and  the  head  of  Christ  is  God,"  1  Cor. 
xi,  3.  By  one  figure  :  viz.,  the  relation  of  the  human 
head  to  the  human  body,  three  subjects  are  here  illustrated  : 

♦  Mr.  G.  has  a  note  on  2  Pet.  i.  1,  "  That  by  these  ye  mitrht  be 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  With  Mr.  BeLsham,  he  thinks  that 
'•  this  exprci^sion  is  stronger  than  any  which  are  u.sed  of  Chri.st,  and 
which,  if  it  had  been  applied  to  him,  would  have  l>een  held  forth 
as  an  irrefragable  proof  of  his  proper  deiiy."  (Vol.  i,  p.  418.)  We 
ask  their  pardon.  Such  an  expression  would  have  proved  liie  con- 
trary'. St.  Peter's  words  assert  only  that  Christ  inns  partake  the  di- 
vine nature.  If  Jesus  Christ  merely  partook  the  divine  nature,  "  the 
fulness  of  the  godhead"  would  not  then  "  dwell  in  him  bodily." 


THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  73 

(L)  In  matrimomal  union  "  the  man  is  the  head  of  the 
woman."  (2.)  In  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  of  which 
every  beUever  is  a  member,  "Jesus  Christ  is  the  head." 
Tlie  head  of  every  man  is  Christ.  (3.)  There  is  an  in- 
etiable  union  between  God  and  his  Christ :  "  his  Son  Jesus 
whom  he  has  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  above  liis  fel- 
lows." In  this  union,  '•  tlie  head  of  Christ  is  God  :" 
the  human  nature  is  subordinate,  the  divine  nature  is 
supreme. 

The  union  of  man  with  his  wife,  and  that  of  Christ 
with  his  church,  are  compared  with  each  other.  "  The 
husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  head 
of  the  church,"  Eph.  v,  23.  Mr.  G.  may  say  that  the 
one  is  an  explanation  of  the  other.  (Vol.  i,  p.  328.)  Be 
it  so.  The  explanation  does  not  reduce  them  to  a  level. 
The  man  and  his  wife  "  are  one  flesh  ;"  but  '•  he  that  is 
joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  spirit,"  1  Cor.  vi,  17.  In  like 
manner,  the  union  of  God  with  his  Christ,  and  that  of 
Christ  with  his  church,  are  compared  : — "  that  they  also 
may  be  one  in  us  :  that  they  may  be  one  even  as  we  are 
one."  This  Mr.  G.  calls  an  "  explanation."  But,  as  in 
the  former  case,  though  the  union  of  the  members  of  Christ 
with  each  other  and  with  him  is  explained  by  the  union  of 
Christ  with  God,  the  explanation  does  not  reduce  the 
things  compared  to  a  level  with  each  other.  No  man 
could  ever  produce  such  proofs  of  his  intimate  union  with 
Christ,  as  Christ  produced  of  his  intimate  union  with  God. 
"  If  ye  had  known  me,  ye  should  have  known  my  Father 
also  :  and  from  henceforth  ye  know  him,  and  have  seen 
him.  Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast 
thou  not  known  me  ?  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen 
the  Father ;  and  how  sayest  thou  then,  Show  us  the 
Father  ?  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and 
the  Father  in  me  ?  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I 
speak  not  of  myself :  but  the  Father,  that  dwelleth  in  me, 
he  doeth  the  works,"  John  xiv,  5-10.  We  cannot  repre- 
sent the  union  of  the  body  and  mind  of  man,  by  stronger 
terms  than  these.  Mr.  G.'s  objections  (vol.  i,  p.  337) 
are  aimed  against  a  dift'erent  application  of  this  passage. 
The  reader  must  be  cautious,  however,  not  to  mistake  the 
present  application  of  it.  It  is  designed  to  show,  not  that 
the  divine  and  the  human  nature  are  one  nature,  but  that 
7 


74  THE    DIVIMTY    OK   JESUS    CHRIST, 

the  divine  perfections  manifested  in  Christ  proved  hi* 
union,  not  merely  with  the  abstract  divine  perfections,  bu^ 
with  the  divine  nature.  And  this  hist  is  what,  in  referring: 
to  the  proots  of  his  oneness  with  God,  Jesus  Christ  ha:^ 
taught  us  to  infer.  "If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father^ 
beUeve  me  not"  when  I  say  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one  ;" 
"  but  if  I  do,  though  ye  beheve  not  me,  beheve  the  works  ; 
(in  which  omnipotence  is  exerted  ;)  that  ye  may  know  and 
believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him,"  John 
X,  37,  38. 

10.  As  the  Scriptures  attribute  to  the  Son  of  God  the 
fulness  of  the  Deity,  and  an  intimate  union  with  the  god- 
head ;  so  Ihey  ascribe  to  his  pre-existent  nature  an  equal- 
ity with  God.  "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  tliought 
it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,"  Phil,  ii,  6. 

(1.)  Our  first  business  here  is  with  the  meaning  of  the 
terms.  Mr.  G.  says  the  word  "  equal,"  being  used  ad- 
verbially, should  have  been  translated  "  like."  (Vol.  i,  p, 
333.)  Waiving  the  want  of  precision  in  this  statement- 
the  word  "  like"  is  either  an  adjective  or  an  adverb.  Mr. 
G.  shuffles  it  in  as  an  adverb,  and  yet  uses  it  adjectively. 
Why  then  does  he  prefer  an  improper  to  a  proper  transla- 
tion  ?  For  the  sake  of  ambiguity.  The  word  like  may 
imply  either  equality  or  similarity.  He  adopts  it  under 
the  pretence  of  its  being  synonymous  with  equal,  and  then 
takes  advantage  of  its  ambiguity.  We,  therefore,  retain 
the  word  "  equal,"  lor  the  sake  of  the  genuine  sense  of 
the  apostle.  Mr.  G.  next  observes  that  the  passage 
should  be  rendered,  "  he  did  not  esteem  it  a  prey  or 
plunder,  the  circumstance  of  being  like  (equal  with)  God  !" 
(Vol.  i,  p.  333.)  Permit,  then,  the  word  ])lunder  to  be 
substituted  for  the  word  robbery ;  the  words  still  mean 
that  the  circumstance  of  equality  with  God  was  properly 
his  own.  Conscious  that  nothing  is  yet  gained,  Mr.  G. 
now  practises  the  art  of  interpolation.  "  Who,  being  in 
the  form  of  God,  did  not  esteem  the  circumstance  of  his 
being  like  (eq)Md  with)  God,  a  prey  for  his  own  private 
gratification."  This  is  genuine  Socinianism  !  After  all, 
however,  he  grants  that  Jesus  Christ  was  etpial  with  God, 
(or  like  (Jod,  if  that  word  conveys  the  same  meaning;) 
although,  according  to  him,  the  Saviour  of  men  did  not  turn 
that  circumstance  to  his  own  private  account. 


THE    DIVINIf  Y    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  75 

(2.)  To  make  a  way  for  these  criticisms,  Mr.  G.  has  con- 
trasted  with  this  apostohc  declaration  those  passages  which 
set  tbrth  the  inferiority  and  subordination  of  the  SonjU)  the 
Father.  As  he  has  in  his  supplements  to  No.  VI.  and 
No.  VII.  several  passages  of  similar  import,  which  he  has 
often  repeated,  and  all  of  which  are  levelled  at  this  equality, 
we  will  here  give  to  them  all  a  general  answer. 

When  St.  Paul  speaks  of  "  Christ  Jesus,  who,  being  in 
the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God,"  he  speaks  distinctly  of  his  pre-existent  nature;  for 
he  proceeds  to  say  that  he  (subsequently)  "  made  himself 
of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,"  Phil,  ii,  7. 

If,  after  his  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  we  find 
him  in  a  state  very  different  from  that  wliicli  preceded,  we 
no  longer  wonder.  To  the  human  nature  which  he  tlms 
took  upon  him,  we  do  not,  like  our  opponents,  ascribe 
those  divine  perfections  which  w'e  attribute  to  his  pre-exist- 
ent nature.  His  human  nature  had  a  beginning,  and  there- 
fore was  not  "  from  everlasting."  It  was  not  independ- 
ent,  but  dependent,  and  therefore  "  lived  by  the  Father," 
died,  and  was  raised  again  by  the  Father.  This  nature 
therefore  prayed,  and  gave  thanks  to  the  Father.  It  was 
not  omnipresent,  and  therefore  could  be  "  exalted  to 
God's  right  hand."  It  was  not  omniscient,  and  therefore 
*'  increased  in  wisdom,"  and  "  knew  not  that  day  and 
that  hour."  It  was  not  omnipotent,  and  therefore  it  could, 
of  itself,  "do  nothing;"  for  all  the  power  it  had  was 
"  given  by  the  Father."  It  was  not  immutable,  and  there- 
fore  died,  revived,  and  was  exalted.  But  all  this  does  not 
hinder  that  these  perfections,  which  Mr.  G.  absurdly 
attributes  to  his  human  nature,  should  still  be  attributed 
to  his  pre-existent  and  divine  nature. 

In  his  state  of  humiliation,  he  who  was  before  in  the 
form  of  God,  and  counted  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God,  was  now  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  in  the  likeness 
of  men.  This  assumed  nature  stood  in  a  subordinate  and 
inferior  relation.  Hence  he  spoke  of  God  as  his  God  and 
his  Father,  and  of  himself  as  the  Servant  and  Son,  and 
acknow!edo;ed  "  the  Father  is  greater  than  I ;"  for  the 
divine  nature  is  superior  to  the  human.  Hence  lie  spoke 
of  himself  as  sent  by  the  Father,  taught  by  the  Father, 


76  THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

commantlcd  by  the  Father,  obeying  the  Father,  not  ho- 
nouring himself,  but  the  Father,  having  a  kingdom  ap- 
pointed by  the  Father,  and  being  glorified  by  the  Father. 
This  inferior  and  subordinate  nature  must  finally  "  give  up 
to  the  Father  the  kingdom"  which  he  has  received  from 
him,  "that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  Hut  all  this  does  not 
prove  that  his  pre-existent  nature  was  not  in  the  form  of 
God,  and  equal  with  God  ;  or  that  it  ever  will  be  inferior 
or  subordinate.* 

As  Jesus  Christ  possesses  the  divine  nature,  and  the 
divine  perfections,  he  is  frequently  denominated  God. 

1.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  pre-existent  nature 
of  Christ  is  what  is  called  the  Word.  St.  John  says,  "  In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  VVord  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God,"  John,  i,  1.  This  passage,  ^r.  G. 
observes,  "  was  written  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  doc- 
trine of  aeons,  of  the  separate  existences  of  wisdom,  and 
life,  and  light ;  and  to  maintain  that  they  were  all  one  and 
the  same  being,  all  God  himself."  (Vol.  i,  p.  200.)  In 
his  comment,  therefore,  he  has  these  words  :  "  And  the 
Word  was  no  other  than  God  himself."  (Vol.  i,  p. 
197.)  This  word,  then,  which  he  here  says  ''was  no 
other  than  God  himself,"  "  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us ;  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the 
only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.''' 
Where  then  is  Mr.  G.'s  modesty,  when  be  asserts  "  that 
even  John  does  not  tell  us  plainly  and  positively  that  there 
were  two  natures  in  Jesus  Christ,  a  divine  and  a  human?" 
(Vol.  i,  p.  433.) 

2.  Hence,  after  his  incarnation,  he  was  called  "  Ema- 
nuel ;  which,  being  interpreted,  is,  Goil  with  us,"  Matt, 
i,  23,  i.  e.,  "  no  other  than  God  himself,"  dwelling  among 
us  in  human  flesli.  ' 

*  Mr.  G.  nlijocts  to  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  that  "  Jesus  Christ 
must  be  dependent  upon  God,  and  inferior  to  him,  because  he  de- 
clares thai  he  had  not  llie  disposal  of  the  highest  places  in  his  own 
kingdom,"  Matt,  xx,  '23.  (Vol.  i,  p.  355.)  Some  men  would 
have  felt  a  little  uneasy  in  urging  an  objection  which  contradicts 
itself,  bv  supposing  a  sovereign  not  to  be  supreirie  "  in  hisown  king- 
dom." If  Mr.  G.  feels  any  thing  of  this,  he  may  soon  be  relieved 
by  being  inliirmed  that  the  words,  "  it  shall  be  given  to  them,"  are 
siipplicd  by  the  translators,  and  that  (he  meaning  of  the  pa.^sage  is, 
"  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left,  is  not  mine  to  give,  ex- 
cept to  them  for  whom  it  is  ]>repared  of  my  Father." 


TUE    DIvAlTY  OF   JESUS   CHRIST.  77 

S.  Tliomas,  therefore,  might  well  exclaim  to  him,  "  My 
Lord,  and  my  God,"  John  xx,  28.  If  the  word  incar- 
nate  "  was  no  other  than  God  himself"  in  humam  flesh, 
this  exclamation  was  the  result  of  conviction.  But  Mr. 
G.  dexterously  divides  the  exclamation  into  two,  the  first 
part  addressed  to  Jesus,  "  O  my  Master  !  or,  O  my  Lord  !" 
(vol.  i,  p.  204  ;)  the  second,  (in  which,  to  assist  the  read- 
er's imagination,  he  supposes  Thomas  to  lift  up  his  hands,) 
addressed  to  the  Father,  "  O  my  God  !"  He  then  admires 
his  own  ingenuity.  But  if  this  had  been  the  meaning  of 
the  evangelist,  he  must  have  said,  '•  And  Thomas  answer- 
ed and  said  unto  him.  My  Lord  !  and  he  said  unto  the 
Father,  My  God!"  But,  unhappily  for  the  honour  of  So- 
cinianism,  St.  John  distinctly  states  that  the  whole  excla- 
mation was  addressed  to  Jesus  :  "  And  Thomas  answered, 
and  said  unto  him,  My  Lord,  and  my  God !" 

4.  Nor  could  Thomas  be  blamable  in  using  a  term  which 
God  himself  has  used.  "  But  unto  the  Son,  (he  saith,) 
Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,"  Hebrews  i,  8. 
The  first  difficulty  which  Mr.  G.  imagines,  in  this  passage, 
is,  that  we  suppose  "  Jehovah  to  be  addressing  Jehovah." 
It  is  just  as  easy  as  for  God  to  say,  "  Let  us  make  man." 
The  second  is,  that  the  Son  is  here  compared  with  his 
*'  fellows,"  viz.,  mankind.  We  grant  that  he  who  is  here 
called  God  is  also  the  "  fellow"  of  men.  But  Jeliovah 
calls  him  also  a  man  who  is  his  ''fellow." — "  Awake,  O 
sword,  against  my  shepherd,  and  against  the  man  (that  is) 
my  fellow,"  Zech.  xiii,  7.  To  help  us  over  these  difficulties, 
Mr.  G.  proposes  a  new  translation.  We  are  always  on  our 
guard  against  Socinian  translations ;  but  quote  them 
for  their  absurdities.  He  would  translate  it  "  God  is 
thy  throne."  (Vol.  i,  p.  210.)  In  another  place  Mr.  G. 
has  quoted  these  words,  "  him  that  sat  on  the  throne," 
as  descriptive  of  "  God  with  a  peculiarly  high  title  or 
epithet."  (Vol.  i,  p.  276.)  He  had  then  forgotten  that 
"  the  Lamb  is  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,"  Rev.  vii,  17. 
Here  he  is  absurd  enough  to  suppose  that  God  is  \he 
throne  in  the  midst  of  which  he  sits.  But  he  that  sits 
upon  the  throne  is  greater  than  the  throne.  So  rather 
than  #ie  Son  shall  be  called  God,  he  shall  be  even  greater 
than  God.  After  all  this,  Mr.  G.  objects,  "  It  is  only  a 
quotation,  and  is  uttered  of  Solomon,"  (vol.  i,  p.  210,)  in 


78  THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

answer  to  which  the  author  of  the  epistle,  who  understood 
the  matter  better  than  Mr.  G.,  says  that  they  are  the 
words  of  God,  addressed  "  to  the  Son." 

5.  It  is  therefore  a  scriptural  truth,  that,  when  "  the 
Word  of  God,"  who,  according  to  Mr.  G.,  is  "  no  other 
than  God  himself,"  "  was  made  flesh,"  "  God  was  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh,"  1  Tim.  iii,  16.  The  learned  are  not 
agreed  whether  the  genuine  reading  of  this  passage  be 
Of,  or  Of,  who  or  God.  As  Mr.  G.  appeals  to  the  **  Ec- 
lectic reviewers,  who  admit  that  Ococ,  God,  is  not  the 
genuine  reading,"  (vol.  i,  p.  217,)  it  will  not  be  improper 
on  this  occasion  to  submit  the  subject  to  their  authority. 
"  We  confess,"  say  they,  "  that  our  judgment  is  in  favour 
of  Of,  ivho.  But  Ave  object  strongly  to  the  rendering  in 
the  improved  version,  (which  Mr.  G.  follows,)  '  He  who 
was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  was  justified  by  the  Spirit,' 
&c."  The  editors  have  followed  Archbishop  Newconie, 
in  supposing  that  og  may  be  put  elliptically  for  ovror  of. 
This  supposition,  we  apprehend,  is  quite  unauthorized  and 
erroneous.  Till  some  better  support  is  adduced  for  this 
assumed  ellipsis,  we  must  reject  it  as  false  Greek.  In  the 
place  before  us,  of  is  undoubtedly  a  relative;  and  its  na- 
tural  and  proper  antecedent  has  been  pointed  out  by  the 
learned  Professor  Cramer,  distinguished  thus : — lyrif  eariv 
eKK?i7)aia  0EOY  fwvrof  {arvXog  Kat  edpaiu/xa  r?/f  a?.Ti'&£cac,  kcu 
ofioTioyovfievuc  fieya,  eari  to  rrig  evaeiieiag  fivbTTjpiov)  of  e^avepw^J??, 
K.  r.  A.  '•  Which  is  the  church  of  the  living  God,  (the 
pillar  and  support  of  the  truth,  and  confessedly  great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness,)  irho  was  manifested,"  &c. 
{Ed.  Rev.,  vol.  V,  part  i,  p.  248.)  Leaving  out  the 
parenthesis,  we  have  the  proposition,  "  God,  who  was  ma- 
nifest in  the  flesh." 

"  But  do  you  mesin  that  the  invisible  God  was  actually 
visible  to  mortal  eyes  ?"  No  :  we  do  not  mean  that  he 
was  manifested  to  bodily  eyes,  but  that  the  divine  nature 
was  manifested  to  the  mental  eyes  of  those  who  knew 
Jesus  Ciirist  aright.  He  that  thus  "  saw  the  Son,  saw 
the  Father  also,"  even  as  Moses  "  saw  him  that  is  invisi- 
ble ;"  for  "  the  Father  was  in  him,  and  he  was  in  the 
Father."  "  "  O,"  says  Mr.  G.,  "  then  I  flrmly  believe  the 
passage.  I  believe  that  God  was  manifest  in  the  fleshr  in 
the  man  Jesus  Christ."    (Vol,  i»  p.  216.) 


'I 
THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHHIST  79 


-nou  immemor  artis, 


Omnia  trauslbrniat  sese  in  miracula  rerum. 

6.  Our  Saviour  is  repeatedly  called  God.  For  exam- 
ple :  "  The  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour,"  Tit.  ii,  10. 
Again :  "  The  kindness  of  God  our  Saviour,"  who  is 
immediately  denominated  "Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour," 
Tit.  iii,  4,  6.  Let  it  be  observed,  once  for  all,  that  "  nei- 
ther is  there  salvation  in  any  other"  than  "  Jesus  Christ 
of  Nazareth  ;"  "  for  there  is  none  other  name  under  hea- 
ven, given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved,"  Acts 
iv,  10,  12,  13.  Again  :  SiKaLoawri  TOT  0eou  j//zwv  nai 
(ju-r)po(  Tjfiuv,  irjaov  Xptarov  ;  "the  righteousness  of  our  God 
and  Saviour,  (viz.,)  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Peter  i,  1.  As  this 
construction  will  frequently  fall  in  our  way,  it  must  be 
here  considered.  (1.)  When  two  persons  are  intended, 
the  demonstrative  article  is  repeated.  Thus  :  Kara  TOY 
Kvptov,   Kat   Kara  TOT   Xpiarov  avrov  ;     "  against    the    Lord, 

and  against  his  Christ,"  Acts  iv,  26.  O  Oeog  Kai  TO  apviov  ; 
"  God  and  the  Lamb,"  Rev.  xxi,  22.  E/c  tov  dpovov  TOY 
deov,  Kat  TOY  apviov  ;  "  from  the  throne  of  God,  and  of  the 
Lamb,"  Rev.  xxii,  1.  (2.)  When  the  demonstrative 
article  is  not  repeated,  one  person  only  is  intended. 
Thus: — Ba(n?.eiai'  TOT  Kvpiov  rjy.uv  /cat  auTT/poc,  iTjaov 
XpioTov ;  "  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,"  2  Pet.  i,  11.  Ti^uoei  TOY  Kvpiov  tjfiuv  Kat  auTrjpor, 
hjaov  XptoTov ;  "  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  ;"   2  Pet.  iii,  18.      TO   6e  Qeu   Kat   Trarpt  }]iiuv  ; 

"  to  God  and  our  Father,"  Phil,  iv,  20.  TB  Oew  Kat  i^arpt ; 
"  to  God,  even  the  Father,"  1  Cor.  xv,  24.  Mr.  Words- 
worth  avers,  "  I  have  observed  more,  I  am  persuaded, 
than  a  thousand  instances  of  the  form  O  Xptarog  Kat  6eoc, 
(Eph.  V,  5,)  some  hundreds  of  instances  of  o  fieyac  Oeog  Kat 
cuTTjp,  (Tit.  ii,  13,)  and  not  fewer  than  several  thousands 
of  the  form  o  deog  Kai  auTjjp,  (2  Pet.  i,  1.)  While  in  no 
single  case  have  I  seen,  where  the  sense  could  be  deter- 
mined, any  one  of  them  used,  but  only  of  one  person." 
{Middleton  on  the  Greek  Article.)  Thus,  as  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration,  the  article  is  not  repeated,  only 
one  person  is  spoken  of :  "  our  God"  and  "  our  Saviour" 
is  one  pferson,  viz.,  "Jesus  Christ."  For  the  same  rea- 
son in  Eph.  V,  5,  the  original  affords  another  proof  of 
the  divinity  of  Christ.      The  words   are  ev  ttj  Baai2.£ia 


80  THE    DlVINItY    OF   JESUS   CHRIST. 

TOY  :Kfjia-ov  nai  Oeov,  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Christ  and 
God. 

But  Mr.  G.  repeatedly  objects  that  "  Jesus  Christ  was 
once  charged  with  making  himself  God,  when  he  positively 
denied  tlie  charge."  (Vol.  i,  p.  2-20.)  The  fact  is  this  : 
Jesus  Christ  had  spoken  of  God  as  his  Father,  implying 
that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  By  this  expression  the 
Jews  understood  him  as  making  himself  a  divine  person, 
i.  e.,  God  ;  and  were  about  to  stone  him.  Now  Jesus  did 
not  deny  that  his  expression  implied  that  he  is  God ; 
which,  as  he  never  gave  unnecessary  offence,  he  un- 
doubtedly would  have  done,  if  truth  had  permitted  it. 
But  he  vindicated  what  he  had  said  by  an  argnmcntiim  ad 
homines,  and  by  an  appeal  to  the  works  of  the  Father 
which  were  done  by  himself:  and  deduced  the  inference 
that  the  Father  is  in  him,  and  he  in  the  Father — i.  e.,  that 
they  were  intimately  one.     See  John  x,  30-38.* 

When  angels  or  men  are  called  gods,  the  appellation  is 
used  with  such  qualifying  circumstances  as  sufficiently 
indicate  a  subordinate  sense.  To  the  angels  it  is  said. 
"Worship  him,"  (viz.,  the  Son  of  God,)  '*  all  ye  gods," 
Psa.  xcvii,  7.  "  God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the 
mighty  ;  he  judgeth  among  the  gods. — I  have  said,  ye  are 
gods  ;  but  ye  shall  die  like  men,"  Psa.  Ixxxii,  1,  &c. 
"  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh,"  Exod.  vii,  1. 
Now  if  it  can  be  made  to  appear  that  the  pre-existent 
nature  of  Christ  is  called  God  under  similar  qualifying 
circumstances,  we  will  give  up  the  doctrine  of  his  divi- 
nity. But  this  is  impossible.  Who  can  more  i)roperly  be 
God,  or  be  called  God,  than  he  who  has  all  the  divine 
perfections  and  the  divine  nature  '?  Under  such  circum- 
stances, when  Jesus  Christ  is  denominated  God,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  seek  such  palliatives  as  are  called  for  when 
the  same  appellation  is  given  to  angels  or  to  men.     But  to 

♦  Mr.  G.  says  Jesus  Christ  expressly  denies  that  lie  was  God 
when  he  exclaims,  "  Why  callest  ihou  rae  gooin  There  is  none 
good  but  one,  that  is  God,"  Mntt.  xix,  17.  (Vol.  i,  p.  350.)  This 
passaare  is  cited  rcpeate<lly  by  Mr.  G.  and  his  coadjutors,  and  gene- 
rally with  an  nir  of  triumph.  Do  they  know  that  Griesbach  has 
the  words,  "  Wliv  a.skest  thou  me  concerning  good  1  One  only  is 
good  ;"  and  that  this  is  the  transhation  given  by  their  great  support- 
ers, the  authors  of  the  "  new  an4  improved  version  V  If  these 
critics  be  in  the  right,  Mr.  G.  must  be  very  much  in  the  wrong. 


THE    DIVIJ^ITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  81 

place  it  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  name  of 
God  is  not  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  in  a  subordinate  sense, 
the  sacred  writers  frequently  apply  it  in  connection  with 
such  epithets  as  confine  their  meaning  to  the  one,  su- 
preme, and  eternal  God.  He  is  styled  the  true,  the  great, 
the  only  wise,  the  mightv,  the  supreme  and  ever  blessed 
God. 

1.  He  is  denominated  the  true  God.  This  is  an  epithet 
which,  when  joined  with  the  word  God,  Mr.  G.  contends 
is  descriptive  of  the  proper  divinity  of  God  the  Father. 
(Vol.  i,  p.  274.)  Yei  the  very  passage  which  he 
quotes  is  written  in  relerence  to  Jesus  Christ.  "And  we 
know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an 
understanding  that  we  may  know  the  true  one.  And  we 
are  in  the  true  one,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This 
is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life,"  1  John  v,  20.  Mr.  G. 
renders  it,  "  by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  The  word,  how- 
ever,  is  the  same  which  is  translated  "  in  the  true  one  :" 
they  must,  therefore,  both  be  translated  in.  This  unwar- 
ranted alteration  being  withdrawn,  the  passage  asserts  as 
clearly  and  decisively  as  possible,  first,  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  true  one  ;  and,  secondly,  that  he  is  the  true  God. 

2.  He  is  denominated  the  great  God.  "  Looking," 
says  St.  Paul,  "  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious 
appearing  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ," 
Tit.  ii,  13. 

This  passage  obviously  speaks  of  Jesus  Christ.  But 
Mr.  G.  has  attempted  to  prove  the  contrary,  by  prefixing 
the  sign  of  the  genitive  case  before  the  words  "our  Sa- 
viour." This,  however,  is  one  of  those  passages  in  which 
the  article  is  not  repeated.  See  p.  79.  The  words  are, 
TOT  /j£ya?MV  deov  Kai  auTiipog  tj/iuv,  and  might  be  trans- 
lated,  with  the  utmost  precision,  "of  our  great  God  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

3.  He  is  denominated  the  only  wise  God.  "  Now 
imto  him  that  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling,  and  to  pre- 
sent you  faultless  before  the  presence  of  his  glory  with 
e.xceeding  joy,  to  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour,  be  glorv 
and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now  and  ever," 
Jude  2^  25.  The  reasons  to  be  assigned  for  applying 
this  doxology  to  Jesus  Christ,  are  the  following:  (1.) 
Jesus  Christ  is  our  only  Saviour.     "  There  is  none  other 


82  THE    DIVINITY    OF    JESt'S    CHRIST. 

name  under  heaven,  given  among  men,  whereby  we  must 
be  saved."  But  it'  Jesus  Christ  be  our  only  Saviour,  he 
must  be  "  the  only  wise  God,  our  Saviour."  (2.)  It  is  he 
*'  that  is  able  to  present  us  faultless  before  tlie  presence 
of  his  glory."  "  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and  gave 
himself  for  it ; — that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a 
glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such 
thing;  but  that  it  should  be  holy,  and  witiiout  blemish." 
He,  therefore,  is  "  the  only  wise  God,  our  Saviour." 

4.  He  is  denominated  the  mighty  God.  Isaiah  predicts 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and  says,  "  his  name  shall  be 
called  the  mighty  God,"  Isa.  ix,  6.  In  this  verse  the  pro- 
phet speaks  of  both  the  human  and  the  divine  nature  of 
Jesus  Christ.  "Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son 
is  given."  These  words  unquestionably  refer  to  the  hu- 
man nature  which  he  should  "take  on  himself."  But  the 
following  words,  "  his  name  shall  be  called  the  mighty 
God,"  evidently  refer  to  the  divine  nature.  "The  Word 
of  God,"  which  Mr.  G.  says  is  ''  no  other  than  God  him- 
self," was  to  be  "made  flesh,"  or  to  take  upon  him  the 
human  nature ;  and  on  account  of  that  union  of  tlie  di- 
vine  nature  with  the  human,  the  "child  born,"  the  "Son 
given,"  should  be  called  "  the  mighty  God." 

It  is  curious  to  attend  to  the  palpable  inconsistency 
of  Mr.  G.'s  efforts  to  attach  to  the  original  words  some 
other  interpretation  than  that  given  by  our  translators. 
After  a  variety  of  contradictory  criticisms,  he  candidly 
avows  that  he  "  feels  no  anxiety  as  to  which  of  the  inter- 
pretations be  adopted,"  (Vol.  i,  p.  501.)  We  give  him 
fidl  credit  for  his  |)erfect  inditlerence,  as  we  know  that  the 
work  of  a  Socinian  is  not  to  explain,  but  to  confound. 
"The  phrase,"  he  says,  "might  be  translated  'a  mighty 
Lord,'  or  'counsellor  of  God,  mighty.'^  (Vol.  i.  ]).  l!)-i.) 
That  is:  (1.)  The  word  (el)  should  not  be  translated 
(Jod,  but  Lord.  {'2.)  It  may  be  translated  God,  if  you 
will  permit  him  to  derange  the  whole  passage.  In  ano- 
ther page  the  terms  "Wonderful,  Counstllor.  miglity 
God,"  are  all  permitted  to  stand  as  a  just  translation,  and 
are  applied  by  him  "  to  the  great  .lehovah."  (Vol.  i,  p. 
499.)  To  use  Mr.  (J.'sown  words,  "Is  not  this  saying  a 
thing,  and  then  unsaying  it  again,  which  is  saying  nothing 
at  all  ?     If  the  last  clause  is  to  be  believed,  the  lirst  can. 


THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  83 

hot,  because  the  last  is  a  negation  of  the  first ;  and  if  the 
first  is  to  be  believed,  for  that  very  reason  the  last  cannot." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  360.)  It  would  have  been  well  if  this  had  been 
the  only  ^jroof  which  Mr.  G.  has  given,  that  his  business 
is  not  to  attend  to  the  voice  of  Scripture,  but  to  invalidate 
its  testimony. 

The  reader  will  now  be  prepared  to  inquire.  Why  these 
laborious  efforts  to  set  aside  the  common  translation,  bv  a 
variety  of  contradictory  criticisms  ?  The  answer  is  ready. 
Not  because  the  common  translation,  which  has  the  au- 
thority of  Bishop  Lowth,  is  not  as  proper  as  any  other 
wliich  has  been  given ;  but  because  the  Socinians  meet 
with  many  difficulties  in  the  application  of  it.  Those  dif- 
ficulties we  shall  now  examine. 

"With  what  propriety  can  the  great  Jehovah  be  the 
subject  of  a  prophecy,  as  about  to  become  something 
which  he  is  not  ?  Can  an  immutable  being  be  subject  to 
change?  Can  the  omnipotent  Creator  become  a  creature  ? 
Can  the  self-existent  Jehovah  become  a  child,  an  infant 
born  ?  What  is  to  be  understood  when  it  is  said  that  Je- 
hovah is  a  son  given  ?"  (Vol.  i,  p.  495.) 

These  are  enow  for  a  specimen  of  Mr.  G.'s  difficulties. 
They  are  mere  repetitions  of  the  same  idea,  couched  in 
different  terms.  We  cannot  have  a  more  clear  demon- 
stration than  this,  that  the  Socinians,  when  they  call 
for  proof  of  the  proper  divinity  of  Christ,  expect  us  to  at- 
tempt, at  least,  to  prove  that  the  divine  nature  was  changed 
into  human,  and  that  that  human  was  still  divine.  This 
is  precisely  what  they  would  insinuate  to  be  our  opinion. 
From  hence  they  draw  all  the  supposed  absurdities  of  our 
system,  and  on  this  hypothesis  they  ground  their  principal 
objections.  These  queries  may  serve  to  convict  of  error 
any  who  have  foruied  such  an  opinion  ;  but  they  are 
not  pointed  at  the  doctrine  of  judicious  Trinitarians.  We 
do  not  believe  that  Jehovah  became  what  he  was  not  be- 
fore ;  or  that  he  underwent  any  change  contrary  to  his 
essential  immutability.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  Cre- 
ator  became  a  creature  :  or  that  the  Self-existent  became 
a  child.  If  Mr.  G.  ask  us  what  we  do  believe,  we 
answer  -in  his  own  words.  We  believe  that  "  the  Word, 
which  was  no  other  than  God  himself,  was  made  flesh," 
(vol.  i,-pp.  197,  200,)  or  took  upon  him  the  human  nature. 


84  THE    DIVIMTY    OF   JESl'S    CHRIST. 

What  can  he  object  to  this  ?  This  human  nature  was  the 
subject  of  prophecy ;  was  the  child  born  ;  was  the  Son 
given  by  Jehovah  ;  was  advanced  to  power  and  domi. 
nion ;  and  his  union  with  the  divine  nature  rendered  ap- 
propriate  that  appellation,  "the  mighty  God,"  which  be- 
longed to  the  divine  nature  before  that  union. 

Mr.  G.  is  so  sensible  that  he  has  not  fixed  any  impro- 
priety upon  our  translation,  that  he  adopts  one  additional 
measure  to  get  rid  of  it.  "After  allj"  says  he,  "they 
are  only  names,  as  Elihu,  Gabriel,"  Arc.  So,  at  length, 
we  find  that  Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  mighty  God.  If 
Mr.  G.  can  find  the  place  where  this  is  made  the  proper 
name  of  Christ,  he  will  not  have  proved  what  he  aims  at, 
till  he  has  proved  that  our  Lord  was  not  in  character 
all  that  he  was  called  by  name  :  that  he  was  not  a  Saviour 
who  was  called  Jesus,  and  that  he  was  not  anointed,  who 
was  called  Christ. 

One  more  objection,  of  a  different  cast,  deserves  atten- 
tion.  "  Can  the  almighty  Father  of  all,  with  any  propriety, 
be  called  a  Son  ?"  That  is,  how  can  Jesus  Christ  be  a 
Son,  and  be  his  own  Father  ?  Not  at  all.  But  let  Mr.  G. 
rather  ask  whetiier  Jesus  Christ  may  not  be  a  Son  in  one 
sense,  and  a  Father  in  another  :  "the  Son  of  God,"  and 
"  the  Father  of  the  everlasting  age  ?" 

5.  He  is  denominated  the  supreme  and  ever  blessed 
God.  "  Christ,  who  is  over  all,  God,  blessed  for  ever," 
Rom.  ix,  5.  These  words  always  did,  and  ever  will,  stand 
in  the  way  of  the  Sncinians.  But  their  motto  is,  JS'il  des- 
perandum.  The  first  thing  to  be  done  is,  to  bring  this 
doctrine  under  suspicion  by  contrasting  with  it  a  passage 
which  appears  to  them  to  contradict  it.  The  elect  pas- 
sage  is  this  :  "  When  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him, 
then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  him  that  put 
all  things  under  him,  that  (Jod  may  be  all  in  all."  Here  is 
the  a|)parent  contnulirtion.  The  diflicidty,  however,  is 
easily  solved  by  ap|)Iving  tiie  doctrine  of  the  twofold  na- 
ture of  Christ.  Here  is  a  human  nature  which  Mas  "of 
the  Israelites,"  which,  after  being  "  oliedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross,  was  highly  exalted,  and  re- 
ceived a  name  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  (things)  in  hea- 
ven,  and  in  earth,  and  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every 


THE    DIVlNtTY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  85 

tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."  When  all  these  things  shall 
be  subdued,  this  human  nature  shall  also  become  subject 
to  the  divine.  On  the  other  hand,  here  is,  in  the  same 
person,  a  divine  nature  which  existed  before  the  incarna- 
tion, which  had  glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world 
was,  and  which  shall  be  "  all  in  all"  when  all  shall  have 
been  subdued.  The  next  thing  to  be  done  is  to  supply  the 
word  eaTQ,  be.  The  passage  then  becomes  a  pious  ejacu- 
lation  :  "  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever  !"  But 
who  gave  to  the  Socinians  this  authority  to  add  words  of 
their  own,  whereby  to  pervert  entirely  the  meaning  of  the 
words  of  God  1  The  interpolation  of  a  word  is  not,  however, 
all  that  is  necessary  for  the  perversion  of  the  meaning  of 
this  passage  :  the  construction  of  it  must  also  be  altered. 
"  In  an  ejaculatory  sentence  the  participle  is  always  put 
before  the  substantive."  Ev/'.oyj^TOf  o  Gsof,  is  then  the  form, 
as  in  1  Peter  i,  3  ;  Eph.  i,  3  ;  Luke  xix,  38.  But  in  a 
declarative  sentence  the  substantive  or  pronoun  is  put 
first.  The  form  then  is,  of  canv  ev?.oy7iToc,  as  in  Rom.  i, 
25;  0  Qeoc,  0  uv  ev?-oyrjToc,  as  in  2  Cor.  xi,  31;  or,  o  wv 
eeof  euAoy»?-of,  as  in  the  passage  under  examination. — 
Jesus  Christ,  therefore,  is  not  only  the  blessed  God,  but 
also  the  supreme  God  :  "  who  is  over  all  for  evermore." 

As  Mr.  G.  has  generously  assisted  us  by  several  im- 
portant concessions,  he  will  now  afford  us  farther  assist, 
ance  by  a  large  collection  of  passages  which  we  shall 
quote  from  his  supplement.  Having  arranged  them  under 
different  heads,  he  has  thereby  stamped  them  with  a  pe- 
culiar character  which  will  spare  us  a  great  deal  of  argu- 
mentation.  The  reader  will  please  to  observe  that  the 
first  passage  of  eacli  of  the  following  sections  is  cited  bv 
Mr.  G.  in  the  place  referred  to  as  properly  descriptive  of 
the  divine  glory  of  God  the  Father. 

I.  "  Jehovah  the  one  or  only  God." 

"  Jude  4  :  Denving  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  (Vol.  i,  p.  227.)  This  is  one  of  those 
passages  in  which  the  article  is  not  repeated,  and  which 
we  have  already  shown  (p.  79)  speak  only  of  one  person. 
Our  {SEOTvoriii')  governor,  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
are  therefore  the  same.  But,  beside  this,  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served  that  in  a  parallel  passage  Jesus  Christ  is  spoken 

8 


86  THE    DIVINITY    OF  JESUS   CHRIST. 

of  clS  our  {^SeanoTTiv)  governor.  Tov  ayopaaavra  avrovc;  dec-' 
-KOTTjv  apvovfievoi  \  ''denying  the  governor  that  bought 
them,"  2Pet.  ii,  1.  Tliis  passage  Mr.  G.  has  phxced 
among  those  which  distinguish  the  supreme  God  by  pecu- 
liarly high  titles  and  epithets.  (Vol.  i,  p.  275.)  But  Jesus 
Christ  is  he  that  bought  them  :  "  Thou  wast  slain,  and 
{rjyopaaa^)  hast  bought  US  to  God  by  thy  blood,"  Rev.  v,  9. 
Now,  if  he  that  bought  us  is  our  governor,  and  there  is 
but  one  governor,  God  ;  it  follows  that  Jesus  Christ,  who 
bought  us  with  his  blood,  is  our  one  governor  God. 

"  1  Tim.  vi,  15  :  Who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate, 
the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords."  (Vol.  i,  p.  227.) 
The  same  titles  are  given  to  Jesus  Christ.  "  These 
shall  make  war  with  the  Lamb,  and  the  Lamb  shall  over- 
come them ;  for  he  is  Lord  of  lords,  and  King  of  kings," 
Rev.  xvii,  14.  "  His  name  is  called  the  Word  of  God. 
And  he  hath  on  his  vesture  and  on  his  thigh  a  name  writ- 
ten, King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,"  Rev.  xix,  13-16. 
If  therefore  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  is  "  the 
blessed  and  only  Potentate,"  Jesus  Christ  is  that  blessed 
and  only  Potentate. 

IL  "  God  absolutely  and  by  way  of  etiiinence." 

"  Luke  xxii,  69  :  Hereafter  shall  the  Son  of  man  sit  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God,"  (Vol.  i,  p.  229.) 
"  Christ  the  power  of  God,"  1  Cor.  i,  24. 

"  Mark  ii,  7  :  Who  can  forgive  sins,  but  God  only  ?" 
(Vol.  i,  p.  229.)  So  Mr.  G.  quotes,  as  good  authority  for 
a  Socinian,  the  enemies  of  our  Lord.  "  When  Jesus  per- 
ceived in  his  spirit  tiiat  they  so  reasoned  within  themselves 
he  said  unto  them.  Why  reason  ye  these  things  in  your 
hearts  I  Whether  is  it  easier  to  say  to  the  sick  of  the 
palsy,  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee ;  or  to  say.  Arise,  and 
take  up  thy  bed,  and  walk?  But  that^ye  may  know  that 
the  Son  of  man  hath  jiower  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  (he 
saitli  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy.)  I  say  unto  tiiee.  Arise, 
and  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  thy  way  into  thine  house," 
Mark  ii,  7-11. 

'•  Heb.  xii,  23  :  God,  the  judge  of  all."  (Vol.  i,  p.  263.) 
"  The  Father  judgoth  no  jnah,  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son."  John  v,  22. 

in.  "  God  with  jncidinrh)  high  titles  and  epithets." 

"  Matt,  xxvi,  63  :  The  living  God."  (Vol.  i,p.  269.) 


THE    DIVINfTY    OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  87 

*' The  Word  was  God.  In  him  was  life,"  John  i,  1,  4. 
And  Mr.  G.  grants  that  "  wisdom,  and  Ufe,  and  Hght  are 
all  one  and  the  same  being,  all  God  himself."  (Vol.  i,  p. 
274.) 

"  1  John  ii,  20  :  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  275.)  "  Ye  denied  the  Holy  One,"  Jesus  Christ, 
Acts  iii,  14. 

"  Rev.  i,  8  :  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and 
the  ending,  saith  the  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was,  and 
which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty."  (Vol.  i,  p.  275.) 
This  passage,  which  Mr.  G.  has  cited  as  speaking  like  the 
rest,  of  God,  with  peculiarly  high  titles  and  epithets,  refers 
to  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  the  Lord  that  speaks  of  himself, 
and  we  are  to  remember  that  "  to  us  there  is  but  one 
Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,"  1  Cor.  viii,  6. 
The  same  "  peculiarly  high  titles  and  epithets"  are  given 
to  him  in  other  places.  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last  :  I,  Jesus, 
have  sent  mine  angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things," 
Rev.  xxii,  13,  16.  "  I  am  the  first  and  the  last :  I  am 
he  that  liveth  and  was  dead ;  and  behold  I  am  alive 
for  evermore,"  Rev.  i,  17,  18.  "  These  things  saith  the 
first  and  the  last,  which  was  dead  and  is  alive,"  Rev.  ii,  8. 

"  Rev.  iv,  11  :  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive 
glory,  and  honour,  and  power;  for  thou  hast  created  all 
things,  and  for  thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were  created." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  276.)  We  repeat  that  "  there  is  one  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things ;"  to  whom  there- 
fore these  words  are  addressed.  "  All  things  were  created 
by  him,  and  for  him,"  Col.  i,  16. 

«  Matt,  xi,  25  :  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  hea- 
ven  and  earth."  (Vol.  i,  p.  269.)  "  Preaching  peace 
by  Jesus  Christ :  he  is  Lord  of  all,"  Acts  x,  35. 

"  James  v,  4  :  The  Lord  of  Sabaoth  ;  i.  e.,  of  hosts." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  274.)  This  very  title  is  given  to  Jesus  Christ. 
^'  These  things  said  Ksaias,  when  he  saw  his  glory  and 
spake  of  him,"  John  xii,  41.  Now,  in  the  account  which 
Esaias  gives  of  his  vision,  and  from  which  the  evangelist 
made  his  quotation,  the  prophet  calls  him,  whose  glory  he 
had  seen^the  Lord  of  hosts  :  "  Mine  eyes  have  seen  the 
King,  the  Lord  of  hosts,"  Isa.  vi,  5. 

"  J  Thess..  ii,  4 :  God  which  trielh  our  hearts,"    (Vol.  i, 


88  THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

p.  273.^  And  "  Rom.  viii,  27  :  He  that  searcheth  the 
hearts.'*  (Vol.  i,  p.  274.)  "  These  things  saith  the  Son  of 
God,  who  hath  his  eyes  like  unto  a  flame  of  fire:  all  the 
churches  shall  know  that  I  am  He  that  searcheth  the 
reins  and  hearts,"  Rev.  ii,  18,  23. 

"Acts  iii,  13:  God,  which  knoweth  the  hearts."  (Vol. 
i,  p.  271.)  "  But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them, 
because  he  knew  all  men,  and  needed  not  that  any  should 
testify  of  man  ;  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man,"  John  ii, 
24,  25. 

"  1  Tim.  iv.  10  :  God,  who  quickeneth  all  things." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  274.)  "  For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead, 
and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom 
he  will,"  John  v,  21. 

"  Rom.  xv,  33  :  The  God  of  peace  be  with  you  all." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  272.)  "  My  peace  I  give  unto  you,"  said  Jesus 
Christ,  John  xiv,  27.  "  The  Lord  of  peace  (the  '  one 
Lord')  himself  gave  you  peace  always  by  all  means," 
2  Thess.  iii,  16. 

IV.   "  God  Jehovah  the  sole  object  of  religious  adoration." 

It  is  not  said  in  any  part  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  that 
<he  Father  only  is  the  object  of  worship  ;  but  rather  "  that 
all  men  should  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father ;  and  he  that  honoureth  not  the  Son  honoureth 
not  the  Father,"  John  v,  23.     But  let  us  iiear. 

"  John  iv,  23  :  The  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the 
Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ;  for  the  Father  seekoth  such 
to  worship  him."  (Vol.  i,  p.  231.)  "  When  hebringeth 
in  the  first-begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  And  let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  him,"  Hob.  i,  6.  So  the  true 
worshippers  worship  the  Son  as  well  as  the  Father!  The 
wise  men,  a  leper,  a  ruler,  the  woman  of  Canaan,  the  men 
in  the  ship,  the  disciples,  the  man  out  of  the  tombs,  and 
the  blind  men,  all,  in  their  turns,  "worshipped"  Jesus 
Christ.  See  Matt,  ii,  11  ;  viii,  2;  ix,  18;  xv,  25  ;  xiv, 
33  ;  xxviii,  9  ;  Mark  v,  6  ;  Luke  xxiv,  52;  John  ix,  38. 
In  all  these  places  we  have  the  same  word  (T/jofrwvftj) 
which  is  used  by  our  Lord,  in  the  passage  Mr.  G.  has 
quoted,  as  definitive  of  that  worship  which  the  true  wor- 
shippers render  to  the  Father.  It  is  the  word  which  Luke 
uses  in"  speaking  of  the  worship  which  Peter,  "because 
be  also  was  a  (mere)  man,"  refused  to  accept  from  Cor- 


THK    DIVINJ:TY    of   JESUS    CHRIST.  89 

aelius,  Acts  x,  25.  It  is  the  same  word  which  St.  John 
uses  when  he  speaks  of  the  worship  he  was  about  to  offer 
at  the  feet  of  the  angel  ;  and  which  the  angel  uses  when 
he  forbids  it,  and  says,  Worship  God.  So  scriptural  it  is 
"  that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour 
the  Father,"  John  v,  23. 

"  Matt,  vi,  6  :  When  thou  prayest,  pray  to  thy  Father 
which  is  in  secret."     (Vol.  i,  p.  279.)     "  And  they  stoned 
Stephen,  invoking,  and  saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my 
spirit :  and  he  kneeled  down,  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 
Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge,"    Acts  viii,  59,  60. 
What  can  be  an  act  of  higher  adoration  from  the  lips  of  a 
man,  than  this  in  which  the  protomartyr  at  once  com- 
mitted  to  Christ  his  departing  spirit,  and  prayed  to  him 
for  the  forgiveness  of  his  enemies?    "Who  (say  Mr.  G. 
and  the  perverse  Jews)  can  forgive  sins,  but  God  only  ?" 
We  proceed  : — "  The  same  Lord  is  rich  unto  all  that  call 
upon  him.     For  whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  shall  be  saved,"  Rom.  x,  12,  13.     "And  the  apos- 
tles said  unto  the  Lord,  Increase  our  faith  !"  Luke  xvii,  5. 
Mr.  G.  has  cited  a  passage  in  which  St.  Paul  prays  to 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son  :    "  Now  God  himself,  and 
our  Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way  unto 
you!"    (Vol.  i,  p.  285.)    In  these  three  passages,  Jesus 
Christ  is  invoked  as  the  God  of  providence,  grace,  and 
salvation ;  and  that  salvation  is  absolutely  promised   to 
them  that  call  upon  him.     Again  :  "  When  Jesus  departed, 
two  blind  men  followed  him,  saying.  Thou  Son  of  David, 
have  mercy  on  us  !"     Matt,  ix,   27.     This  prayer  Jesus 
graciously  heard  and   answered.     But  Mr.    G.   and  his 
coadjutors,  having  found  these  words  in  the  litany,  and 
not    recognizing   them    as  a  quotation    from    Scripture, 
but  supposing  them  to  be  the  words  of  some  "  creed-ma- 
ker,"    have  condemned  them  as  idolatrous,  and   "exhort 
all  Christian  people  to  abstain  from  such  worship."  (Vol. 
i,  p.  397.)     From   hence  we   learn,     (1.)  That   such    a 
prayer  is  an  act  of  worship.     (2.)  That  offered  to  a  mere 
creature  it  would  be  idolatrous.     (3.)  That  Jesus  Christ 
is  not  a  mere  creature,  since  the  Scriptures  speak  of  such 
worship  with  approbation.     This  is   an   undesigned,  but 
striking  proof,  that  the  sentiments  of  a  Christian  agree 
very  ill  with  a  Socinian. 

8* 


90  THE    DIVINITT    OF   JESDS    CHRIST. 

To  all  this  Mr.  G.  objects  that  "  we  are  not  justified 
in  paying  adoration  to  any  other  being  than  that  Being 
to  whom  our  Saviour  prayed,  and  wlioni  he  styles  the 
only  true  God."  (Vol.  i,  p,  213.)  This  may  be  very 
just  when  rightly  applied.  But  in  answer  to  it,  they  who 
"  know  what  they  worship,"  "  no  longer  know  Jesus 
Christ  after  the  flesh."  As  "in  him  dwells  all  the  ful- 
ness  of  the  godhead,"  or  "  the  only  true  God  ;"  to  that 
fulness  of  the  godhead  their  prayer  is  addressed,  through 
him  in  whom  he  resides. 

"  We  worship  t'ward  that  holy  place, 
In  which  he  does  his  name  record  ; 
Does  make  his  gracious  nature  known, 
That  living  temple  of  his  Son." 

"Col.  i,  12:  Giving  thanks  to  the  Father."  (Vol  i,  p. 
285.)  The  very  next  passage  which  Mr.  G.  gives  is,  *'  Sing- 
ing with  grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord,"  Col.  iii.  16 : 
viz.,  to  Jesus  Christ  the  "one  Lord."  "  I  thank  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord,  who  hath  enabled  me,  for  that  he  counted 
me  faithful,  putting  me  into  the  ministry,"  1  Tim.  i,  12. 

"  2  Thess.  i,  2  :  Grace  unto  you,  and  peace  from  God 
our  Father."  (Vol.  i,  p.  287.)  This  text  is  to  prove  that 
Jehovah  is  the  sole  object  of  religious  worship.  Then 
Jesus  Christ  is  Jehovah  ;  for  among  many  other  passages 
which  might  be  quoted,  mirabile  dictii,  Mr.  G.  has  him- 
self quoted,  for  the  same  purpose,  the  following  :  "Grace, 
mercy,  and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord."     (Vol.  i,  p.  285.) 

Mr.  G.  grants  that  the  term,  "  Jehovah,"  "is  the  term 
exclusively  applied  to  the  one  God."  (Vol.  i,  p.  191.) 
"I  am  Jehovah — that  is  my  name;  and  my  glory  will 
I  not  give  to  another,"  Isa.  xlii,  8^  If  therefore  the 
Son  be  denominated  Jehovah,  he  is  the  one  supreme 
God. 

1.  In  the  following  passages,  the  name  Jehovah  is  given 
to  the  Son  : — 

(1.)  "  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness, 
Prepare  ye  the  way  of  Jehovah,"  Isa.  xl,  3,  5. 

(2.)  *'  Behold,  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall 
prepare  the  way  l)efore  me  ;  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek, 
shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of 


THE    DIVINiVY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  91 

the  covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in,  behold  he  shall  come, 
saith  Jehovah  of  hosts,"  Mai.  iii,  4. 

These  passages,  according  to  the  evangelists,  rtfer  to 
John  the  Baptist,  who  was  the  harbinger  of  Christ,  "  the 
messenger  of  the  covenant,"  and  prepared  the  way  before 
him.  But  the  propliet  predicts  his  crying,  Prepare  the 
way  of  Jehovah.  And  "  Jehovah  of  hosts"  says,  "  He 
shall  prepare  the  way  before  me."  Jesus  Christ  is  there- 
fore Jehovah,  who  was  preceded,  in  his  visit  to  mankind, 
by  John  the  Baptist. 

(3.)  "  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and 
a  King  shall  reign  and  prosper.  In  his  days  Judah 
shall  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely  ;  and  this  is 
his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  Jehovah  our  right- 
eousness," Jer.  xxiii,  5,  6. 

To  the  common  application  of  this   passage  Mr.  G. 
has  objected  that,  in  Jer.  xxxiii,  14,  16,  the  same  appella- 
tion is  given  to  Jerusalem.     (See  vol.  i,  p.  508.)     That  it 
is  so  in  our  translation  is  granted ;  and  if  that  be  correct 
the  objection  has  some  strength  in  it.     Whoever  compares 
the  two  passages,  will  observe  at  once  the  utmost  proba- 
bility  that  the  writer  intended  them  to  be  parallels.     [1.] 
In  both  of  them  the  Branch  of  righteousness,  or  the  right- 
eous Branch,  is  the  subject.     [2.]  In  both  passages  the 
predicates  arcall  the  same.     This  is  presumptive  evidence 
that  they  ought  to  be  parallel  throughout.     When  we  con- 
sider  Jer.  xxxiii,  15,  16,  alone,  we  observe,  [1.]  That  the 
Branch  is  tiie  subject,  and  therefore  the  name  ought  to  be 
predicated  of  it.      [2.]  As  a  person,  the  name  is  more 
properly  attributed  to  him  than   to  a  place,    Jerusalem. 
[3.]  As  a  branch  of  righteousness,  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that    it  is  he  who  must    be  called  the    Lord  our  right- 
eousness.    [4.]  And  lastly,  as  he  "  shall  execute  judgment 
and  righeousness  in  the  land"  of  Israel,  and  in  those  days 
Judah  shall  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely,  it  is 
natural  that  the  inhabitants  should  regard  him  as  the  Au- 
thor  of  righteousness  to  them,  and  call  him  "our  right- 
eousness." 

This  presumptive  evidence  is  corroborated  by  facts  :  a 
few  mamiscripts  have  the  masculine  lS  h,  tor  nS  lah  ;  and 
in  this  way  most  of  the  versions  have  understood  it.  The 
Chaldee,  the  Syriac,  and  the  vulgar  Latin  read,  "  This  is 


92  THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CURIST. 

the  name  whereby  they  shall  call  him."  Thus  the  objec- 
tion falls  to  the  ground,  and  both  passages  prove  the 
divinity  of  the  "Branch  of  righteousness." 

2.  By  comparing  the  following  passages,  it  will  farther 
appear  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Jehovah  incarnate. 

(1.)  "The  burden  of  the  word  of  Jehovah — they  shall 
look  upon  me  whom  they  have  pierced,"  Zech.  xii,  1,  10. 
This  passage  is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ : — "  They  shall 
look  on  him  whom  they  have  pierced,"  John  xix,  37. 

(2.)  "Thus  saith  Jehovah  that  created  the  heavens, 
There  is  no  God  else  beside  me  ;  a  just  God  and  a  Sa- 
viour :  there  is  none  beside  me.  Look  unto  me,  and  be 
ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth ;  for  I  am  God,  and 
there  is  none  else.  I  have  sworn  by  myself.  That  unto 
me  every  knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear,"  Isa. 
xlv,  18,  21-23.  "  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ.  For  it  is  written,  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord, 
every  knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  con- 
fess to  God,"  Rom.  xiv,  10,  11. 

(3.)  "Thy  Maker  is  thine  husband:  Jehovah  of  hosts 
is  his  name  ;  and  thy  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel," 
Isa.  liv,  6.  "  The  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife,"  Rev.  xxi,  9. 
Beside  this,  according  to  St.  John,  when  Isaiah  saw  the 
glory  of  Jehovah  of  hosts,  he  saw  the  glory  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  spake  of  him. 

(4.)  "Sanctify  Jehovah  of  hosts  himself;  and  he  shal' 
be  for  a  sanctuary ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  for 
a  rock  of  offence,  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel,"  Isa. 
viii,  13,  14.  "Unto  you,  therefore,  whicli  believe,  he 
(Christ)  is  precious  :  but  unto  them  which  be  disobedient, 
the  stone  which  the  builders  disallowed,  the  same  is  made 
the  head  of  the  corner,  and  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a 
rock  of  offence,"  1  Peter  ii,  7,  8.  Christ,  therefore,  is  not 
merely  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  Jehovah 
of  hosts. 

Mr.  G.  has  exhibited  a  large  number  of  scriptures,  to 
prove  that  tiie  "Son  of  God  is  subordinate  to  God  the 
Father."  (Vol.  i,  p.  291.)  With  all  these  we  might  con- 
trast tliose  passages  which  wo  have  already  examined. 
But  it  is. not  our  method  to  destroy  one  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture by  another.  We  att('m|)t,  at  least,  to  reconcile  them. 
The  passage  swhich  Mr.  G.  has  quoted  are  intended  to 


THE    DIVIldrY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  93 

show  that  Jesus  Christ  was  man.  Either  they  prove  this, 
or  they  do  not.  If  any  of  them  do  not  prove  it,  they  do 
not  answer  his  purpose.  If  they  do  prove  it,  we  areright 
in  applying  them  to  his  human  nature.  To  all  this  Mr. 
G.  has  consented.  "You  agree  with  us,"  says  he,  "as 
far  as  we  go,  only  you  go  much  farther.  You  acknow- 
ledge that  Jesus  Christ  possessed  a  human  nature.  This 
Ave  believe.  If,  then,  in  addition  to  this,  you  also  assert 
that  he  was  a  Deity,  the  whole  of  the  proof  rests  with 
you."  (Vol.  i,  p.  327.)  Thus  Mr.  G.  has  granted  that 
the  proof  of  his  human  nature  is  no  proof  that  he  is  not 
also  divine;  and  that  we  acknowledge  all  he  can  possibly 
assert.  But  he  calls  for  "  proof"  that  Jesus  Christ  has  a 
nature  which  is  not  human.  (Vol.  i,  p.  356.)  We  have 
already  produced  it  from  his  own  Lectures,  (1.)  where 
he  has  granted  that  the  divine  perfections  were  given  to 
Christ.  These  were  not  human,  (2.)  where  he  has  said 
that  "the  Word"  which  was  made  flesh  "was  no  other 
than  God  himself:"  (3.)  where  he  asserts  that  St.  John 
wrote  his  gospel  to  maintain  that  the  wisdom,  and  life, 
and  light,  attributed  to  the  "  Word  made  flesh,"  were  all 
one  and  the  same  being,  all  God  himself:  (4.)  where  he 
says  that  '•  in  Jesus  Christ  as  a  man  the  fulness  of  the 
Deity  did  reside:"  (vol.  i,  p.  344:)  (5.)  where  he  says 
that  "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  :  (vol.  i,  p.  216  :) 
(6.)  where  he  has  cited  many  passages  which  relate  to 
absolute  Deity,  some  of  which  relate  to  Jesus  Christ;  and 
others  of  which  have  their  parallel  passages  which  relate 
to  Jesus  Christ.  We  have  produced  it,  also,  from  the 
language  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  the  divine  perfections,  nature,  and  name  are  as- 
cribed to  Jesus  Christ ;  and  on  the  result  we  rest  the 
question.  Mr.  G.  and  his  brethren  may  affect  to  over- 
look  these  proofs,  or  pretend  they  have  overturned  them  ; 
but  the  candid  reader  will  perceive  that  they  are  neither 
so  few  nor  so  trivial  as  our  opponents  represent  them.  The 
state  of  the  controversy  then  is  simply  this:  Jesus  Christ 
is  represented  to  us  as  trod  and  man.  Mr.  G.  denies  the 
former,  because  he  acknowledges  the  latter.  W^e  acknow- 
ledge  th^former,  but  by  no  means  deny  the  latter.  The 
Scriptures  speak  of  him  as  "  the  Prince  of  life,"  who  was 
"killedj"  Acts  iii,   15;  "the   Lord  of  glory,"  who  was 


94  THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

infamously  "  crucified,"  1  Cor.  ii,  8;  "the  root  of  Jesse," 
*'  and  a  root  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,"  Isa.  xi,  1,  10  ;  "  the 
Lord,"  and  the  "Son,"  the  "root  and  the  offspring  of 
David,"  Matt,  xxii,  45  ;  Rev.  xxii,  16  ;  the  "  Lord  of  all," 
and  the  servant  of  men.  Acts  x,  3G  :  Matt,  xx,  28  ;  "the 
Word,  which  was  God,  and  was  made  flesh,"  John  i,  1, 
14  ;  "  who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men,"  Phil,  ii,  6,  7  ;  the  Son  of  God,  and  the 
Son  of  man  ;  the  fellow  of  Jehovah  and  of  men,  Zech.  xiii, 
7 ;  Heb.  ii,  9 ;  eternal,  and  yet  beginning,  Mic.  v,  2 ; 
"  having  life  in  himself,"  John  i,  4,  and  yet  being  depend- 
ent; "  filling  all  in  all,"  and  lying  in  a  manger,  Eph.  i,  23  ; 
"knowing  all  things,"  and  yet  ignorant  of  some,  John  xxi, 
17;  "almighty,"  and  yet  "  crucified  through  weakness," 
Rev.  i,  8  ;  2  Cor.  xiii,  4  ;  always  "  the  same,"  and  yet 
undergoing  many  changes,  Heb.  i,  12  ;  "  reigning  for 
ever,"  and  yet  resigning  the  kingdom,  Isa.  ix,  7;  1  Cor. 
XV,  24 ;  "  equal  with  God,"  and  yet  subordinate,  Phil,  ii, 
6,  &c.  ;  "one"  with  God,  and  yet  a  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  John  x,  30  ;  1  Tim.  ii,  5.  Such  sayings 
are  apparent  contradictions,  and  can  be  reconciled  only 
on  the  Scripture  hypothesis  which  ascribes  to  him  the 
"fulness  of  godhead,"  and  "the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh." 
If  the  Socinians  cannot  see  the  twofold  truth,  the  cause 
of  their  blindness  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the  ambiguity  of 
revelation,  but  in  the  pride  of  reason,  and  some  fatal  per- 
verseness  of  human  nature. 


CHAPTER  VL 

Of  the  Personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

When  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  considered  in 
its  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  there  are 
two  points  nearly  related  to  each  other,  whicli  claim  our 
attention :  viz.,  I.  Whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  mere 
energy,  or  a  real  person  ?  II.  Whether  he  be  a  creature 
or  God  ? 

I.  In  entering  upon  the  first  of  these  inquiries,  it  is 
necessary  to  state  distinctly  that  we  are  not  at  present 


THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  95 

inquiring  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  third  person  in 
the  godhead.  With  that  question  we  have  here  nothing 
to  do.  Our  object  is  to  ascertain  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  mere  operation  of  God,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  an  intelligent  and  voluntary  agent,  i.  e.,  a  person. 

We  are  not  about  to  deny  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  that 
by  which,  however  distinguished,  the  Father,  through  the 
Son,  operates  on  all  created  beings,  whether  material  or 
immaterial.  We  grant  that  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  "  the  power  of  the  highest" — "  the  linger  of  God  ;"  but 
not  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  merely  an  attribute  of  the  divine 
nature.*  That  it  is  something  more  is  what  is  now  to  be 
proved. 

Mr.  G.  has  generously  conceded  that  the  sacred  writers 
did  personify  the  Holy  Spirit.  (Vol.  i,  p.  152.)  He  even 
says  "  that  it  would  have  been  next  to  an  impossibility  not 
to  have  repeatedly  personified"  him.  (Vol.  i,  p.  173.) 
This  is  a  concession  which  truth  has  forced  from  him  when 
he  was  attempting  to  prove  the  contrary.  That  the  sacred 
writers  did  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person  is  granted 
by  our  opponent,  and  therefore  need  not  be  proved.  But 
then,  according  to  Mr.  G.,  personality  is  ascribed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  because  he  is  a  proper  person,  but  accord, 
ing  to  a  common  rhetorical  figure  by  which  "  other  acci- 
dents, qualities,  or  affections"  are  personified.  (Vol.  i, 
p.  152.)  Here  then  Mr.  G.  and  we  are  at  issue.  Heavers 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  only  a  figurative  person  ;  we  say 
that  he  is  a  proper  person. 

That  the  unlearned  reader  may  not  be  deceived  by  Mr. 
G.'s  flourish  about  figures  of  speech,  it  is  necessary 
briefly  to  state  the  nature  of  those  which  are  likely  to 
come  under  our  notice.  When  a  writer  attributes  to  body 
properties  which  belong  only  to  spirit,  or  attributes  to 
spirit  properties  which  belong  only  to  body  ;  he  then 
speaks,  not  properly,  but '  figuratively.  When  a  writer 
attributes  the  properties  of  a  real  being  to  mere  abstract 
qualities,  and  speaks  of  those  qualities  as  persons,  while 
they  have  no  real  personality  ;  then,  also,  he  speaks,  not 

♦With  the  utmost  propriety,  Mr.  G.  has  adopted  the  words  of 
Simon  Ihefbrcerer,  for  a  motto  to  his  lecture  on  this  subject.  The 
agreement  between  them  is  admirable;  but  it  belonged  to  Mr.  G> 
to  be  the  first  to  perceive  and  acknowledge  it. 


96  THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

properly,  but  figuratively.  But  when  a  writer  attributes 
to  body  only  the  properties  of  body,  and  to  spirit  only 
the  properties  of  spirit ;  and  wlien  he  speaks  of  qualities, 
not  as  of  real  beings,  but  as  of  qualities,  and  of  real  beinirs, 
as  of  real  beings — then  he  speaks,  not  figuratively,  but 
properly. 

The  supposition  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  by  the  sacred 
writers,  improperly  personified,  if  it  have  any  foundation 
in  truth,  must  be  grounded  on  the  impossibility  of  his 
being  a  proper  person,  or  of  his  possessing  any  personal 
qualities.  If  mere  abstract  wisdom,  power,  or  goodness 
be  personified,  we  see  immediately  that  the  writer  is 
speaking  figuratively  ;  because  these  attributes  have  no 
real  existence  but  in  the  spirits  in  which  they  inhere.  But 
when  we  find  a  spirit  personified — that  very- kind  of 
real  being  in  which  alone  these  personal  qualities  can 
inhere,  we  are  sure  that  the  words  of  the  writer  are  not 
figurative,  but  that  they  are  used  with  the  utmost  propriety. 
Now  such  by  name,  as  well  as  by  nature,  is  the  Holy 
Spirit :  who,  therefore,  of  all  other  beings,  is  most  properly 
spoken  of  as  a  person. 

To  puzzle  the  reader  after  the  Socinian  manner,  Mr. 
G.  has  told  him  that  the  "  primary  signification  of  Tiny/a,. 
which  is  commonly  translated  spirit,  is  the  breath  of  the 
mouth."  (Vol.  i,  p.  150.)  The  reader  must  be  told,  also, 
that  it  is  the  only  word  which  the  sacred  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  use,  and,  in  fact,  the  only  term  whicli  the 
language  afibrded  them,  by  which  to  convey  the  idea  of 
immaterial  substance.  IINEYMA  aapna  km  oaea  ovk  ex^i  '. 
«'  A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,"  Luke  xxiv,  39. 
But  does  iMr.  G.  mean  to  insinuate  that  breatii  is  its 
proper  signification  when  it  is  applied  to  the  Deity  ? 
Rather  than  relinquish  a  favourite  error,  while  he  is  per- 
petually declaiming  against  the  literal  interpretation  of 
scriptural  figures,  will  he  be  guilty  of  a  most  gross  and 
palpable  absurdity,  that  of  literally  applying  to  God,  who 
is  a  spirit,  one  of  the  meanest  properties  of  an  animal 
body  ?  Has  God  a  mouth  ?  And  does  he  actually  breathe 
from  it?  God  is  Tnn/zo,  a  spirit.  Is  God  then  a  breath  ? 
Must  not  brtiath,  if  attributed  to  God,  be  attributed  to  him 
figuratively  ?  Andif  figuratively,  what  is  the  meaning  of  tho 
word  ?  Can  it  be  any  thing  corporeal .'  Or  is  it  not  rather 


THE    PERSON ALttTY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  97 

properly  translated  spirit  ?  What  then  is  the  Holy  Spirit, 
but  a  spirit  ?  Is  not  God  properly  a  spirit  ?  What  then  is 
the  Spirit  of  God  but  a  spirit  1  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  nei- 
ther spirit  nor  matter,  it  is  nothing.  If  the  Spirit  of  God 
be  not  a  spirit,  there  is  no  spirit  in  the  universe. 

But  if  the  Spirit  of  God  be  a  spirit,  what  is  the  reason 
to  be  assigned  for  the  supposition  that  personality  is  figu- 
ratively ascribed  to  him  ?  What  can  be  properly  a  person, 
if  a  spirit  be  not  ?  This  is  not  the  way,  however,  in 
which  the  Socinians  reason.  They  have  adopted  an  idea 
of  the  nature  of  spirit  altogether  different  from  that  which 
is  suggestsd  by  the  Scriptures.  Mr.  G.  says,  "  From  this 
very  name  (Spirit)  I  should  draw  precisely  the  opposite 
inference,  that  because  it  is  a  spirit,  it  is  not  a  substance 
or  person."  (Vol.  i,  p.  125.)  If  in  this  confession  he 
have  not  evinced  much  understanding,  he  has  given  a 
strong  proof  of  his  candour.  It  is  at  least  an  honest 
confession,  and  may  serve  as  a  beacon  to  "  warn  off"  the 
unwary  reader  from  the  rocks  of  atheism.  Mr.  G.  ac- 
knowledges that  "  God  is  a  spirit."  This  is  a  branch  of 
his  natural  religion.  But  "  because  it  (he)  is  a  spirit,  it 
(he)  is  not  a  substance  or  person."  Now,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  crudities  of  Mr.  G.'s  philosophical  notions  of  spirit, 
who  could  demonstrate  more  effectually  than  he  has  done, 
that  Socinianism,  deism,  and  atheism  are  nearly  allied? 
God  either  is  a  person,  or  he  is  not.  If  he  be  not  a  per- 
son, he  is  not  an  intelligent  and  voluntary  agent ;  that 
is,  there  is  no  God.  If  he  be  a  person,  and  spirit  have 
no  personality,  no  intellect,  or  will,  then  God  is  not  spirit 
but  matter.  As  the  essential  property  of  matter  is  ex- 
tension, and  extension  necessarily  implies  limits,  matter 
cannot  be  infinite.  A  material  God  cannot  be  an  infinite 
God;  and  a  finite  God  is  no  God  at  all.  Again:  all 
attributes  or  accidents  must  have  a  substance  in  which  to 
inhere.  If  "  God  is  a  spirit,"  and  spirit  is  not  a  substance, 
then  God  is  not  a  substance.  If  God  be  not  a  substance,  he 
can  have  no  accidents  or  attributes.  God  therefore  is 
neither  substance  nor  accident ;  he  has  neither  being  nor 
attributes,  i.  e.,  he  is  nothing.  If  the  "  unskilful"  will 
not  take  iJie  alarm  when  Mr.  G.'s  trumpet  gives  no  "  un- 
certain sound,"  their  case  is  hopeless.  We  appeal  from 
the  speculative  atheism  of  Mr.  G.  to  the  better  understand. 

9 


98  THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THK    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

ing  of  plain,  unlettered  men,  who  read  their  Bibles.  Let  the 
absurdity,  not  to  say  blasphemy,  into  which  his  "  precisely 
opposite  inference"  would  lead  us,  serve,  as  the  best  argu- 
ment that  could  be  produced,  to  convince  us  that  a  spirit 
is  a  substance  and  a  person. 

So  far  from  it  being  true  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a 
mere  attribute  of  spirit,  that  the  proper  attributes  of  spirit 
are  ascribed  to  him.  Goodness  is  an  attribute  of  spirit, 
and  is  ascribed  to  him.  "  Thou  art  my  God — thy  Spirit 
is  good,"  Psa.  cxliii,  10.  Hence  that  holiness  which  be- 
longs only  to  intelligent  and  voluntary  agents  is  made  pecu- 
liarly characteristic  of  him,  and  is  not  so  often  attributed 
to  any  other  being  :  he  is  called  emphatically  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Mr.  G.  supposes  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  the  mere 
power  of  God.  But  power  and  energy  are  attributed  to 
the  Spirit  of  God.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,"  Rom.  xv,  19.  Now  either  the  apostle 
means  to  speak  of  the  power  of  a  power,  the  attribute  of 
an  attribute,  which  is  an  absurdity  ;  or  he  must  mean  to 
attribute  these  personal  qualities  to  the  Spirit  as  to  a  spirit, 
a  substance,  and  a  real  person. 

To  pursue  this  subject  farther.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a 
spirit,  how  can  it  be  a  mere  energy  which  has  no  person, 
ality?  Our  ideas  of  a  person  are  those  of  an  intelligent 
and  voluntary  agent  ;  and  such  are  the  ideas  which  the 
Scriptures  give  us  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

1.  He  is  an  intelligent  agent.  "  The  things  which  God 
hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him,"  says  St.  Paul,  "  he 
hath  revealed  unto  us  by  his  Spirit ;  for  the  Spirit  search- 
eth  all  tilings,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God.  For  what 
man  knowoth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  man 
M'hicli  is  in  him?  even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth  no 
man  but  the  Spirit  of  God,"  1  Cor.  ii,  9-11.  Here  we 
have  a  plain  and  unequivocal  declaration  that  "  the  Spirit 
of  God  scarcheth  and  knoweth  all  things,  even  the  deep 
things  of  God."  How  then  will  Mr.  (i.  get  over  it  ?  No- 
thing is  more  easy.  He  will  raise  a  dust,  and  escape  in 
the  cloud.  Let  us  hear  liim,  and  examine  his  comment  at 
full  length.  "Here  are,"  says  he,  "  the  following  posi- 
tive as'sertions,  that  the  knowledge  they  (tbe  apostles) 
possessed  was  revealed  to  them  by  the  S|)irit  of  God  him- 
self, (aucrv,  himself!)  or  by  divine  inspiration."     Very 


THE    PERSONALiItY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  99 

true  !  "  That  there  was  nothing  too  great  to  be  thus  made 
known  to  them,  even  the  deep  counsels  of  the  Almighty." 
Not  so.  This  "  assestion"  is  not  St.  Paul's,  but  MrrG.'s. 
St.  Paul  asserts  that  "  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea, 
the  deep  things  of  God  :"  and  Mr.  G.,  to  get  red  of  this 
troublesome  "  assertion,"  substitutes  one  of  his  own  which 
is  not  true.  Infinite  things  are  "  too  great"  to  be  made 
fully  known  to  finite  minds.  "  The  love  of  Christ,"  with  the 
good  leave  of  the  Socinians,  "  passeth  knowledge  ;"  even 
the  knowledge  of  those  who  "  are  strengthened  with  might 
by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man,"  Eph.  iii,  10,  19.  "  And 
then,"  Mr.  G.  adds,  '■  as  if  for  fear  he  should  not  be  un- 
derstood,  the  apostle  explains  what  he  meant  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  by  saying,  it  was  exactly  the  same  in  God,  as  the 
spirit  of  a  man  is  in  a  human  being."  That  is,  if  Mr.  G. 
please,  as  there  is  an  intelligent  spirit  in  man  which 
knows  the  things  of  a  man  ;  so  the  Spirit  of  God  is  an 
intelligent  spirit  which  knoweth  the  things  of  God. 
Q.  E.  D.  Thus  has  Mr.  G.  led  us,  undesignedly  and 
unexpectedly,  to  the  very  conclusion  which  we  wished. 
Fas  est,  et  ah  hoste  doceri. 

2.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  a  voluntary  agent :  he  has  a  will. 
"  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  say  the  apostles, 
"  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these 
necessary  things,"  &C.,  Acts  xv,  28.  Again  :  "  He  that 
searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spi- 
rit, because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according 
to  (the  will  of)  God,"  Rom.  viii,  27.  But  Mr.  G.  is  dis- 
posed to  controvert  the  meaning  of  this  last  passage,  and 
to  deny  that  it  is  of  the  Spirit  of  God  the  apostle  is  speak- 
ing. We  will  examine  his  paraphrase.  "  Our  spiritual  de- 
sires,"  says  he,  "  come  in  aid  of  our  bodily  weakness."  So 
our  "  not  knowing  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought," 
is  a  bodily  weakness,  and  not  a  mental  "  infirmity."  All  the 
absurdity  of  this  comment  is  only  that  of  substituting  body 
for  spirit ;  an  easy  thing  with  one  who  knows  no  difier- 
ence  !  We  proceed  : — '•  For  we  know  not  what  we  should 
pray  for  as  we  ought:  but  our  inward  spiritual  desires 
intercede  for  us,  though  we  cannot  express  them  in  appro- 
priate lan^age."  So,  after  all,  this  "  bodily  weakness" 
is  only  the  want  of  grammatical  knowledge  !  Our  poor 
weak  bodies  are  not  masters  of  rhetoric  :  we  cannot  ex- 


100  THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

press  ourselves  properly !  Nay,  that  is  not  the  entire  sum 
of  our  bodily  weakness.  Our  bodies  "  know  not  what  we 
should  pray  for  as  we  ought."  They  are  ignorant  bodies ! 
Hence  "our  inward  spiritual  desires  intercede  for  us." 
Our  spirit  takes  pity  on  the  weakness  of  our  body ;  and 
since  the  latter  cannot  know,  desire,  and  ask,  as  the  So- 
cinians  think  it  ought,  the  former  undertakes  its  cause,  and 
performs  these  necessary  duties  much  to  the  advantage  of 
its  dull  companion.  "  And  then,"  says  Mr.  G.,  "  He  that 
searcheth  the  heart  knoweth  the  desires  of  our  spirit,  that, 
agreeably  to  the  will  of  God,  it  pleadeth  in  behalf  of  the 
holy."  (Vol.  i,  p.  122.)  That  is,  we  do  not  know  what 
we  ought  to  ask,  but  our  spirit,  which,  though  it  was  but 
this  moment  our  very  selves,  is  now  another  thing,  knows 
all  about  it,  hits  upon  "  the  will  of  God"  exactly  ;  and  by 
its  "  desires,"  the  only  language  it  can  on  such  an  occa- 
sion use,  pleads  successfully  the  cause  of  the  holy  ;  that  is, 
of  our  holy  body ! 

The  palpable  contradictions  and  gross  absurdities  of 
this  comment  sufficiently  separate  it  from  the  text.  This 
is  another  glaring  instance  of  the  arbitrary  and  irrational 
manner  in  which  Socinians  explain  the  Scriptures.  If, 
after  this  strong  opiate,  we  can  recover  the  use  of  our 
reason,  let  us  examine  the  text  itself. 

"  We  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought." 
It  is  but  just  now  we  have  seen  that  the  spirit  of  man  is 
that  in  man  which  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man.  But  this 
spirit  in  man  knoweth  not,  of  itself,  what  we  ought  to  pray 
for.  If  it  knew  independently  what  to  pray  for  as  we 
ought,  its  own  unaided  desires  would  be  according  to 
the  will  of  God.  This  ignorance  is,  therefore,  our  in- 
firmity. But  "  the  Spirit  helpeth  our  infirmities."  If  the 
Spirit  helpeth  our  infirmities,  and  out  infirmities  are  those 
of  ignorance,  wiiich  is  an  infirmity  of  our  spirit ;  it  cannot 
be  our  own  spirit  that  helpeth  itself.  The  apostle's 
words  are  not  Trrev/tn  tjuuv,  our  spirit ;  but  to  wev^a,  the 
Spirit.  The  question  then  is.  What  spirit  is  that  by  wiiich 
we  are  thus  assisted  ?  (1.)  We  know  of  no  spirit  by  which 
we  can  be  thus  *  helped,"  but  the  Spirit  of  Him  "  that 
searclieth  the  heart?,"  who  alone  can  perfectly  know 
what  we  want,  and  what  we  may  have,  and  who  can 
"  make  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of 


THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY   SPIRIT.  101 

God."  (2.)  To  suppose  any  other  spirit  which  maketh 
intercession  for  the  saints,  is  to  vindicate  the  idolatries 
against  which  we  have  all  protested.  (3.)  The  ajJDstle  is 
speaking  of  those  "  who  have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit, 
(viz.,  of  the  Spirit  of  God,)  and  who  groan  within  them- 
selves, waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of 
their  body."  (4.)  This  is  what  the  apostles  teach  as  be- 
ing at  once  the  privilege  and  the  duty  of  all  Christians — 
"  praying  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Jude  20. 

St.  Paul,  speaking  of  the  "  diversity  of  spiritual  gifts," 
says,  "  All  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit, 
dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will,"  1  Cor.  xii,  11. 
To  evade  the  force  of  this  clear  and  positive  declaration, 
Mr.  G.  compares  it  with  the  following  passage  :    "  Know 
ye  not  that  to  whom  ye  yield  yourselves  servants  to  obey, 
his  servants  ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey,  whether  of  sin  unto 
death,  or  of  obedience   unto    righteousness."     "  Here," 
says  he,  "  sin  is  a  person,  and  the  personal  pronoun  whom 
apphed  to  it.     And  not  only  has  it  will,   but  also  keeps 
servants  and  pays  wages"     (Vol.  i,  p.  130.)     Who  does 
not  see  that,  at  this  rate,  the  proper  personality  of  God  and 
man  may  easily  be  disproved?  Sin,  we  know,  is  only  an  ab- 
stract   quality.     When,  therefore,   it   is   personified,   we 
know  that  a  figure  is  used,  because  properties  and  actions 
are  ascribed  to  it  which  do  not  belong  to  it.     To  prove 
that  volition  is  improperly  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God 
on  the  same  ground,  it  is  therefore  necessary,  first,  to  prove 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  also  is  a  mere  abstract  quality,  and 
that  there  is  a  glaring  absurdity  in  ascribing  to  it  volition. 
But  this  Mr.  G.  has  not  even  attempted  to  prove.     And 
no  wonder  :  for  to  attempt  to  prove  that  volition  is  impro- 
perly attributed  to  a  spirit,  is  equivalent  to  an  attempt  to 
prove  that  volition  is   improperly  attributed  to  man,   to 
angels,  and  to  God. 

To  what  has  been  advanced  in  proof  of  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  unnecessary  to  subjoin  those  proofs, 
the  validity  of  which  must  depend  on  that  of  those  which 
precede.  The  Scriptures  attribute  to  the  Holy  Spirit  the 
personal  affections  of  grief  and  vexation  ;  the  personal 
faculties  ol^  hearing  and  speech, — and  the  personal  offices 
of  a  teacher,  a  guide,  a  monitor,  a  Avitness,  an  ambassa- 
dor, and.  a  comforter.  In  attempting  to  set  aside  these 
9* 


102  THE    PEK30NALITV    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

scriptural  proofs  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  Mr.  G.,  on  one 
occasion,  shows  that  simihir  affections  are  attributed  l<> 
other  beings  "vvhich  are  really  persons  ;   and  thus,  while  he 
denies  that  those  affections  prove  that  distinct  personality 
which  we  have  not  yet  examined,  he  grants  that  personality 
for  which  we  now  contend.     (Vol.  i,  p.  130.)  Thus,  of  one 
class  of  those  proofs,  he  has  left  us  the  entire  possession. 
To  the  rest  he  answers  by  showing  that  the  personal  facul- 
ties and  offices  of  which  we  speak  are  often  attributed  to 
other  beings,  and  even  to  things  inanimate.     (Vol.  i,  pp. 
127,  128, 131.)     His  argument  is  not  drawn  out  at  length, 
lest  it  should  break.  The  drift  of  it  we  suppose  to  be  this  : 
the  personal  faculties  and  offices  are,  by  a  figure,  attributed 
to  beings  which  manifestly  have  no  personality,  and  there- 
fore they  are  figuratively  attributed  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 
But  here,  again,  his  proof  is  at  once  confused  and  defec- 
tive.    Sense  and  speech  are  properly   ascribed   only  to 
animated  bodies.     To  inanimate  bodies,  or  to  incorporeal 
spirits,  they  can  only  be  ascribed  by  a  figure.     Again  : 
to  inanimate  matter,  or  irrational  animals,  because  of  their 
■want  of  reason,  which  is  necessary  to  the  proper  perform- 
ance of  the  functions  of  a  moral  teacher,  a  spiritual  guide, 
&c.,  those  offices  can  only  be  ascribed  figuratively.     But 
to  spirits,  which  are  naturally  endowed  with  intellect  and 
volition,  whether  tliosc  spirits  be  corporeal  or  incorporeal, 
such  functions  are  ascribed  with  the  utmost  propriety  ;  be- 
cause they,  and  only  they,  are  capable  of  the  performance 
of  them.     Mr.  G.  cannot,  therefore,  fairly  take  from  us 
the  proof  arising  from   hence,  without  proving  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  spirit,  and  that  he  is  incapal)le  of  un- 
derstanding  and  will.     Nor  can  we,  on  the  other  hand,  sup- 
port those  proofs  against  his  objections,  without  a  reference 
to  the  spirituality  of  the  Spirit  of  Gpd,  and  to  that  Spirit's 
understanding  and  will.     On  the  latter,  therefore,  the  per- 
sonality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  does  and  must  depend.     Rut 
when  that  si)irituality  is  once  proved,  our  possession  of  all 
the  proofs  arising  from  the  personal  offices  ascribed  by  tlie 
sacred  writers  to  the  Holy  Spirit  is  confirmed. 

It  is  now  time  to  pay  some  attention  to  the  objections 
which  Mr.  G.  has  raised  to  this  doctrine. 

1.  "The  neuter  pronoun,  it,  is   in  no  other  instance, 
in  the  Scriptures,  ever  applied  to  a  person." 


THK    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  103 

Gender  is  only  properly  attributed  to  animal  bodies  ;  but 
God  is  of  no  gender,  and  therefore  the  sacred  writers 
were  left  at  liberty  to  speak  grammatically,  and^to  put 
their  articles  and  pronouns  in  the  same  gender  with  the 
nouns  with  which  they  should  agree.  To  -deiov,  the  word 
used  in  Acts  xvii,  29,  and  translated  the  godhead,  is 
neuter,  and  has  a  neuter  article.  The  word  ■Kvev^a  is  of 
the  neuter  gender,  and  therefore  requires  that  the  article 
which  is  prefixed  to  it,  and  the  pronoun  to  which  it  is  the 
antecedent,  should  be  put  in  the  neuter  gender.  Had  the 
evangelists  and  apostles  written  in  Latin  they  would 
have  used  the  masculine  noun,  spiritus,  and,  according  to 
the  above  rule  of  grammar,  their  pronouns  had  then  been 
put  in  the  masculine  gender.  But  when  a  word  is  used 
which  is  not  of  the  neuter  gender,  the  masculine  article 
and  the  masculine  pronoun  are  used  with  it.  0  TzapaKlnfoc, 
he,  the  Comforter,  is  in  the  masculine  gender.  In  this 
case,  therefore,  our  Lord  uses  the  masculine  pronoun  : — 
"  If  I  go,  I  will  send  avrov,  him  ;" — "and  when  skelvo^,  he, 
is  come,"  John  xvi,  7,  8.  But  this  is  not  all.  Even 
when  the  noun  ■Kvevua  is  used,  and  the  construction  of  the 
sentence  is  such  that  the  rules  of  grammar  do  not  require 
the  pronoun  to  be  put  in  the  neuter  gender,  it  is  put  in  the 
masculine.  Thus  :  "  But  when  EKeivoc,  he,  to  nvevfia,  the 
Spirit  is  come,"  John  xvi,  13.  Again  :  ekelvoc,  "■  He  shall 
glorify  me,"  John  xvi,  14.  Here  again  Mr.  G.  has  led  us 
to  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  pei-sonality  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  for  what  reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  use 
of  masculine  pronouns  which  have  a  neuter  antecedent, 
or  precede  a  neuter  noun,  but  the  proper  personality  of 
the  Spirit?  When,  on  the  other  hand,  Jesus  Christ,  who 
is  unquestionably  a  person,  is  spoken  of,  either  the  mas- 
culine or  the  neuter  article  is  used,  as  the  noun  may  re- 
quire. 0  6e  Kvpioq  TO  Tvfi'/za,  says  St.  Paul  :  "The  Lord 
is  the  Spirit."  Here,  that  the  articles  may  each  agree 
with  the  noun  to  which  it  is  prefixed,  both  the  masculine 
and  neuter  articles  are  used.  If  what  Mr.  G.  says  be 
true,  he  will  now  "  start  with  astonishment"  to  find  that 
both  the  Lord  and  the  Spirit  are  at  once  masculine  and 
neuter  ;^nd  that,  according  to  his  mode  of  reasoning, 
they  both  are  at  once  persons  and  "  things,  without  life  or 
sense !" 


104  THE    PERSONALITY    OP    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

2.  "Notwithstanding  the  promises  of  our  Saviour  to 
send  a  Comforter,  and  the  personal  offices  he  ascribed  to 
it,  no  such  person  ever  appeared  to  the  apostles,  nor  do 
they  appear  to  have  expected  it."    (Vol.  i,  pp.  155,  156.) 

Mr.  G.'s  head  is  running  on  a  corporeal  appearance, 
rather  than  on  a  purely  spiritual  being.  That  no  such 
appearance  was  expected  or  seen  by  the  apostles,  is 
granted.  Mr.  G.  says  he  has  heard  of  the  apostles  "  re- 
ceiving  the  Holy  Spirit ;"  but  it  appears  that,  with  him, 
an  animated  body  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  person ! 
Such  are  the  distinctions,  and  such  the  arguments,  on 
which  Socinianism  is  founded  ! 

3.  "  In  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,"  Mr.  G. 
says,  "  there  are  at  the  beginning  and  elsewhere  wishes 
of  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
but  none  from  the  Spirit  distinctly."  (Vol.  i,  p.  156.) 

The  reader  will  learn  from  the  drift  of  this  argument, 
that  if  the  sacred  writers  liad  wished  peace  "  from  the 
Spirit  distinctly,"  Mr.  G.  would  grant,  not  only  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  but  that  he  is  a  third  person  in 
the  divine  nature.  Now  let  us  try  whether  his  heart  will 
bow  to  the  word  of  truth.  "  John  to  the  seven  churches 
in  Asia  :  Grace  be  unto  you,  and  peace,  from  Him  wliicli 
is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come ;  and  from  the 
seven  spirits  which  are  i)efore  his  throne,  viz.,  the  seven 
Spirits  of  God,  (chap,  iii,  1,*)  and  from  Jesus  Christ," 
Rev.  i,  14.     Mr.  G.  must  now  be  converted. 

4.  "  St.  Paul  wishes  to  tlie  Corinthians  the  communion, 
fellowship,  or  participation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  can 
with  no  propriety  be  spoken  of  a  person."  (Vol.  i,  p.  157.) 

So  Mr.  G.  may  suppose  when  he  has  first  formed  the 
most  confused  ideas  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  and  has  ima- 
gined,  as  we  have  just  seen,  that  a  body  is  necessary  to 
constitute  a  person.  But  let  us  for  a  moment  consider 
the  subject.  In  his  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  apostle  wishes  n  Knivuma  t«  aym  rrvn'/iaror,  "  tiie  fellow- 
ship  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  be  with  all  of  them."  Now, 
very  providentially,  the  same  apostle,  addressing  his  first 
epistle  to  the  same  church,  says  also,  "God  is  faithful, 
bv  whom  ye  are  called  itc  Koivuviav  m  vm  avrn,  to  the  tel- 

♦  The  number  seven  is  used  in  the  Apocalypse  as  a  number 
indicatin!?  perfection. 


THE    PERSONALITY    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  105 

lowship  of  his  Son,"  1  Cor.  i,  9.  St.  Peter  says,  "  You 
might  be  ^eiac  koivuvoi  (pvaecj^,  partakers  of  the  divine 
nature,"  2  Pet.  i,  4.  And  once  more  :  "  We  arermade 
fxEToxoi  Tov  Xpt^ov,  partakers  of  Christ,"  Heb.  iii,  14.  Mr. 
G.  must  have  formed  some  erroneous  idea  of  the  subject, 
for  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  undoubtedly  persons  ;  and 
it  appears  from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  that  we  may  have 
the  same  communion,  fellowship,  or  participation  of  the 
divine  nature  and  of  Christ.  Let  him,  therefore,  trans- 
late the  words  as  he  pleases,  he  cannot  consistently  object 
to  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  objecting 
also  to  the  personality  of  "  the  divine  nature"  and  of  Jesus 
(Christ. 

5.  Mr.  G.  has  found  in  the  Scriptures  certain  expres- 
sions applied  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  which  are  not,  in 
his  opinion,  used  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit.  From 
hence  he  infers  that  personality  cannot  be  attributed  to 
the  latter  as  to  the  former.  His  argument  may  be  set 
aside  by  observing  that,  if  there  be  any  distinction  between 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  some  things  may 
well  be  attributed  to  one  and  not  to  another  of  them.  The 
suppposed  fact,  on  which  this  argument  is  founded,  may  be 
set  aside  by  comparing  other  passages  of  Scripture  witii 
those  which  Mr.  G.  has  quoted.  For  instance  :  with 
respect  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  Mr.  G.  quotes  the  fol- 
lowing : — "  Now  God  himself,  even  our  Father,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way  unto  you,"  1  Thess. 
iii,  11.  "  Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  God 
even  our  Father,  who  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  us 
everlasting  consolation,  and  good  hope,  through  grace, 
comfort  your  hearts  and  stablish  you  in  every  good  work  ; 
2  Thess.  ii,  16.  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by 
the  commandment  of  God  our  Saviour,  and  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  1  Tim.  i,  1.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sacred 
writers  used  similar,  though  not  the  same  expressions  con- 
cerning the  Holy  Spirit.  For  instance  :  "  He  shall  lead 
you  into  all  truth."  "  Jesus  was  led  by  the  Spirit  into  the 
wilderness,"  Matt,  iv,  1.  "Then  the  Spirit  said  unto 
Philip,  Go  near  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot,"  Acts  viii, 
29.  "Tlhey  assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia,  but  the  Spirit 
suffered  them  not,"  Acts  xvi,  7.  "  The  Comforter,  which 
is  the  Holy  Ghost,"  John  xiv,  26.     '•  And  walking  in  the 


106  THE    PERSONALITV    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIEIT. 

fear  of  God,  and  in  the  comfort  (or  consolation)  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  Acts  ix,  31.  "  That  ye  may  abound  in 
hope  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Rom.  xv,  13. 
"  To  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit,"  Eph.  iii, 
16.  "The  Holy  Ghost  said.  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them,"  Acts 
xiii,  2.  Thus  we  find  that  what  Mr.  G.  thinks  to  be 
ascribed  exclusively  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  equally 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  "  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  distinct  person  in  the  god- 
head, then  he  was  the  parent  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Vol.  i, 
p.  160.) 

To  this  we  answer :  It  was  not  the  divine,  but  the 
human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  conceived  of  the 
virgin  ;  and,  for  obvious  reasons,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that 
that  was  not  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  father,  but 
without  a  father.  It  was  a  creation.  All  the  absurdities, 
therefore,  which  Mr.  G.  has  imagined  to  follow,  fall  to  the 
ground.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  accounts  which 
St.  Luke  and  St.  Matthew  give  of  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion, when  they  can  be  converted  into  a  battery  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  are  not  spurious !  AVhen  the 
miraculous  conception  is  to  be  disproved,  tiie  Socinians 
cannot  allow  them  to  be  genuine. 

7.  Mr.  G. 's  argument,  in  page  155.  is  not  levelled 
against  the  doctrine  of  this  chapter.  His  objections, 
numbered  5,  6,  7,  and  8,  may  be  put  together  as  speci- 
mens of  the  depth  of  his  metaphysical  reasonings.  "  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  given  by  measure  ;  to  be  poured 
out ;  the  disciples  are  said  to  be  filled  and  baptized  with 
it ;  it  is  said  to  be  quenched  ;  and  in  several  instances  it 
is  said  to  be  divided.  How  do  these  sayings  agree  with 
the  idea  of  his  personality  ?"  (Vol.  i^'pp.  166,  168.) 

Tills  is  a  literary  curiosity  !  How  is  it  that  Mr.  G., 
who  is  perpetually  dreaming  about  metaphors,  can  see 
none  here  ?  And  why,  when  he  was  determined  to  inter- 
pret all  these  scri|)tural  expressions  literally,  did  he  not 
seize  the  long-sought  opportunity  to  prove  tliat  the  Spirit 
is  not  spirit,  but  matter?  What  but  mattt-r,  which  is  an 
extended  substance,  can  be  measured,  divided,  poured 
out  ?  Wliat  but  fire,  wliicli  is  matter,  can  be  extinguished? 
And  wherewith  can  any  man,  except  a  Socinian,  (see  p. 


THE    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  107 

34,)  be  washed,  but  with  water,  which  is  another  species 
of  matter  ?  And,  lastly,  what  is  spirit  but  breath  or  wind, 
that  is,  air,  which  is  also  material .'  Thus  the  dememstra- 
tion  is  complete,  and  the  favourite  system  of  materialism  is 
triumphant.  But  a  man,  who  is  compos  mentis,  will  at 
once  see  that  all  these  are  figurative  expressions,  by 
which  the  properties  of  matter  are  predicated  of  spirit :  and, 
therefore,  that  every  argument  founded  upon  the  literal  in- 
terpretation of  them  must  fall  to  the  ground.  Unless  Mr. 
G.  seriously  intend  to  deny  all  spirituality  to  the  Spirit,  he 
will  find  that  his  objection  is  levelled  against  his  own  as 
much  as  at  the  common  hypothesis.  He  thinks  it  "  per- 
fectly rational  to  suppose  that  divine  powers  were  divided, 
measured,  and  poured  out,  or  that  persons  were  baptized 
with  them,  or  quenched  them."  Now  let  Mr.  G.  be 
asked.  What  is  the  cubic  measure  of  the  divine  power  ? 
Into  how  many  parts  is  it  divisible  ?  What  quantity  of  it 
will  fill  a  man  of  ordinary  stature  ?  After  a  division  of 
it  into  many  parts,  do  those  parts  attract  each  other  again, 
or  does  division  annihilate  some  of  them  ?  How  is  it 
used  when  Socinians  baptize  with  it,  instead  of  ordinary 
water  ?  What  becomes  of  it  when  it  is  quenched?  "O," 
says  Mr.  G.,  "  these  are  all  figurative  expressions." 
The  answer  is  satisfactory.  But  it  is  equally  so  as  a 
reply  to  his  objections  to  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

8.  Mr.  G.'s  next  objection  is  founded  on  the  supposed 
ignorance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Because  our  Lord  has 
said,  "  No  one  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither 
knoweth  any  one  the  Father  save  the  Son,"  Mr.  G.  infers 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  knew  neither  the  Father  nor  the  Son, 
without  a  special  revelation.  From  hence  he  argues  that 
"  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  possibly  be  a  person  in  the  god- 
head distinct  from  the  Father."  (Vol.  i,  p.  169.) 

This  argument  is  founded  on  a  gross  mistake.  For, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  "  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things, 
yea,  the  deep  things  of  God."  What  is  here  said  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  is  therefore  asserted  also  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  "  No  one,  ovdtic,  knoweth  the  things  of  God,  but 
the  Spirit^f  God,  and  he  to  whom  the  Spirit  of  God  shall 
reveal  them."  Will  Mr.  G.  now  draw  the  same  inference 
concerning  the  Father  and  the  Son  ? 


108  THE    DIVIMITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

9.  Lastly  :  "  The  expressions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being 
given  by  the  Father,  and  sent  by  Jesus  Christ,  are  in- 
compatible with  the  idea  of  its  being  a  person."  (Vol.  i, 
p.  165.) 

What  an  argument !  So  the  Son  of  God  was  not  a 
person,  because,  forsooth,  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  John  iii,  16  ;  and  be- 
cause the  Father  "sent  him  into  the  world."  But  Mr. 
G.  has  an  answer  ready.  We  are  informed  that  Jesus 
Christ  "  came  voluntarily."  So  then  the  Son  of  God  was 
a  person,  had  a  will,  before  he  came  into  the  world,  and 
came  voluntarily  !  Thus  does  a  Socinian  establish  at  one 
time,  what  at  another  he  pulls  down.  But  if  it  had  not 
been  expressly  said  that  Jesus  Christ  came  voluntarily  into 
the  world,  Mr.  G.  would  have  denied  him  the  honour  of 
personality.  And  yet  every  person  of  us  came  into  the 
world  involuntarily. 

II.  Having  found  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be,  not  a  mere 
energy,  an  abstract  attribute,  but  a  substance,  a  real  being, 
and  a  person,  we  now  inquire  whether  he  be  a  crea- 
ture or  God. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  be,  as  we  have  shown,  a  spirit,  he 
must  be  either  created  of  uncreated.  It  is  not  consistent 
with  Mr.  G.'s  hypothesis  to  assert  that  he  is  created ;  nor 
could  such  an  assertion  fmd  any  support  from  the  autho- 
rity of  Scripture.  But  if  he  be  not  a  creature,  and  yet  be 
a  real  being,  he  must  be  God. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  frequently  denominated  the  Spirit 
of  God.  If  then,  as  our  Lord  has  asserted,  and  Mr.  G. 
has  repeatedly  granted,  "  God  be  a  spirit,"  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  God.  There  is  no  way  of  evajjing  this  conclusion 
but  by  supposing  that  God  is  one  spirit  which  is  himself, 
and  has  another  which  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  by  this 
supposition  we  run  into  two  absurdities :  viz.,  first,  that 
there  are  two  divine  Spirits,  and  therefore  two  Ciods  ;  and, 
secondly,  that  these  two  Spirits  are  one  Spirit,  and 
these  two  Gods  one  God. 

Doctor  Lardner,  whom  Mr.  G.  has  thought  proper  to 
cite,  "  thinks  that  in  many  places  the  Spirit,  or  the  Spirit  of 
God,  or  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  equivalent  to  God  himself." 
<Vol.  i,  p.  152.)  Whether  Mr.  G.  agrees  with  the  doctor 
or  not,  it  is  difficult  to  judge  ;  for  in  the  present  instance, 


THB    DIVINITY    OF   THE    HOLT    SPIRIT.  109 

the  question  cannot  be  decided  by  the  contradictten  which 
that  agreement  would  involve.  Be  that  as  it  may,  we  shall 
find  that  he  cannot  fairly  interpret  many  parts  of  Scrip* 
ture  without  implicitly  sliding  into  the  doctor's  position. 

When,  therefore,  Mr.  G.  tinds  himself  hemmed  in  by 
such  scriptures  as  denominate  the  Holy  Ghost  the  Spirit 
of  God,  he  is  obliged  to  grant  that  "  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  meant  the  same  thing,  in  reference  to  God,  as  the  spi- 
rit of  man  in  relation  to  man."  (Vol.  i,  p.  162.)  "  Now, 
I  think,  for  consistency's  sake,"  says  he,  "  you  must 
allow  that  if  by  the  Spirit  of  God  is  meant  a  distinct 
being,  by  the  spirit  of  man  must  also  be  meant  a  being 
distinct  from  the  man."  (Vol.  i,  p.  122.)  "Only,"  he 
adds,  "  do  not  say  that  in  one  instance  the  words  must 
be  figurative,  and  in  another  they  must  be  literal,  just  as 
best  suits  the  system  you  have  adopted.  (Saul  among 
the  prophets!)  Upon  fair  reasoning,  then,  on  Scripture 
grounds,  if  your  arguments  prove  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be 
a  being  distinct  from  God,  from  precisely  similar  pre- 
mises we  may  draw  the  following  inferences,  that  the  spi- 
lit  of  Jesus  was  a  being  distinct  from  Jesus,  the  spirit  of 
Paul  a  being  distinct  from  Paul,  and  the  spirit  of  every 
man  distinct  from  the  man  himself."     (Vol.  i,  p.  123.) 

"How  forcible  are  right  words!"  Who  could  have 
argued  more  conclusively  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  God, 
than  in  these  few  lines  Mr.  G.  has  done !  We  believe 
that  the  spirit  of  man,  though  distinct  from  the  body  of 
man,  is  man,  and  not  a  being  distinct  from  man.  With 
Dr.  Lardner,  and  Mr.  G.  who  quotes  (query,  believes?) 
him,  we  say  that  it  is  the  incorruptible  part  of  man 
which  survives  after  (the)  death  (of  the  body.)  And  we 
join  with  them  in  their  judicious  appeal  to  Solomon,  who 
says,  "  And  the  spirit  shall  return  to  God  who  gave  it," 
Eccles.  xii,  7.  God,  however,  has  no  body,  but  is  all  in. 
corruptible  spirit.  We  are,  therefore,  violently  driven, 
by  Mr.  G.'s  most  conclusive  argumentation,  to  confess 
that  "  the  Spirit  of  God  is  not  a  being  distinct  from  God, 
but  God  himself." 

We  may  now,  without  fear  of  contradiction,,  and  in 
hope  of  farther  occasional  assistance  from  Mr.  G.,  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  some  additional  proofs  of  what  he  has  so 
liberally  granted. 

10 


110  THE    DIVINITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

1.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  frequently  called  God.  Not 
that  the  sacred  writers  formally  announce  the  divinity  ol' 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  when  they  say  "  the  Word  was  God," 
they  announce  the  divinity  of  the  Son.  In  the  latter  case, 
the  truth  was,  and  must  be  unknown,  until  it  was  reveal- 
ed. But,  in  the  former  case,  treating  the  subject  as  already 
known  where  the  Holy  Spirit  was  understood  to  be  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  supposing  his  proper  divinity  to  be  as 
obvious  to  all  men  as  it  is  to  Mr.  G.,  they  only  mention 
it  incidentally,  and,  as  it  were,  without  design.  This 
method,  however,  rather  strengthens  than  weakens  their 
testimony.  In  this  way  St.  Peter,  having  charged -Ananias 
with  "  lying  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  immediately  subjoins, 
"  Thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God,"  Acts  v, 
4.  "  So  that,"  to  use  the  words  of  Athanasius,  approved 
3,  by  Dr.  Lardner,  and  cited  by  Mr.  G.,  in  contirmation 
of  his  own  argument,  "  he  who  lied  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
lied  unto  God,  who  dwells  in  men  by  his  Spirit."  (Vol. 
i,  p.  162.)  St.  Paul  speaks  in  the  same  manner;  for 
having  made  that  appeal  to  the  Corinthians,  "  What ! 
know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  of  God,"  1  Cor.  vi, 
19,  he,  in  another  place,  tells  them,  '*  Ye  are  the  temple 
of  the  living  God  ;  as  God  hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them, 
and  walk  in  them,"  2  Cor.  vi,  16.  To  the  Ephesians  the 
same  apostle  writes,  "You  are  buildod  together,  for  a 
habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit,"  Eph.  ii,  22.  And 
lastly  :  St.  John  says,  "  He  that  keept-th  his  command, 
ments  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  him.  And  hereby  we 
know  that  he  abideth  in  us,  by  ^the  Spirit  which  he  hath 
given  us,"   1  John  iii,  24. 

2.  As  the  name  of  God  is  thus  applied  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  argument  adduced  from  thence  is  much  con- 
firmed bv  thr  api)lication  to  him,  which  we  find  the  sacred 
writers  make,  of  those  perfections  wiiich  are  exclusively 
divine. 

( 1 . )  He  is  represented  as  eternal.  "  Christ,  through  the 
eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot  to  (iod,"  Heb. 

ix,  14. 

(2.)  He  is  represented  as  omnipresent.  *' Whither  shall 
I  go  from  thy  Spirit  ?  or  whither  shall  1  flee  from  thy  pre- 
sence?    If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there;  if  I 


THE    DIVINITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  Ill 

make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold,  thou  art  there.  If  I  take 
the  wings  of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  sea  ;  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy 
right  hand  shall  hold  me,"  Psalm  cxxxix,  7-10.  In  this 
passage  the  psalmist  speaks  of  the  presence  and  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  synonymous,  and  attributes  to  the  Spirit 
of  God  the  proper  omnipresence  of  God, 

(3.)  He  is  represented  as  omniscient.  "Who  hath  di- 
rected the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  or,  being  his  counsellor,  hath 
taught  him  ?  With  whom  took  he  counsel,  and  who  in- 
structed him,  and  taught  him  in  the  path  of  judgment,  and 
taught  him  knowledge,  and  showed  to  him  the  way  of  un- 
derstanding,"  Isa.  xl,  13,  14.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  this 
passage,  compared  with  the  context,  the  prophet  speaks 
indifferently  of  Jehovah,  and  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  ; 
and  that  the  Apostle  Paul  applies  it  to  God  himself,  when, 
speaking  of  the  infinite  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  God, 
he  exclaims,  "  O  the  depths  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wis- 
dom and  knowledge  of  God  !  How  unsearchable  are  his 
judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out !  For  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?  or  who  hath  been  his  coun- 
sellor ?"  Rom.  xi,  33,  34.  The  drift  of  the  passage  is  to 
assert  that  peculiar  attribute  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  original, 
underived  knowledge.  Of  the  extent  of  that  knowledge 
we  have  already  seen  the  strongest  testimony  in  those 
words  :  ^'  The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep 
things  of  God.  The  things  of  God  knoweth  ovdeig,  no 
one,  but  the  Spirit  of  God,"  1  Cor.  ii,  10,  11. 

(4.)  He  is  represented  as  omnipotent.  In  the  passage 
j\ist  cited,  without  changing  the  person,  the  prophet  pro- 
ceeds,  "  Behold,  the  nations  are  as  a  drop  of  a  bucket, 
and  are  counted  as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance ;  behold, 
he  taketh  up  the  isles  as  a  very  little  thing,"  Isa.  xl,  15. 
■*'  All  these  worketh  tliat  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit." 
Should  it  be  asked.  What  are  all  these?  The  answer  is, 
"  Wisdom,"  "  knowledge,"  "  faith,"  "  gifts  of  healing," 
"'  worlj^ng  of  miracles,"  "  prophecy,"  "  discerning  of  spi- 
rits,"  "divers  kinds  of  tongues,"  and  "the  interpretation 
of  tongues,"  1  Cor.  xii,  8-11, — gifts  which  imply  omnis- 
cience,  prescience,  and  omnipotence  in  the  donor.  So 
the  angel  declared  to  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus  :  ''  The 
Ho!y  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 


112  THE    DIVINITY    OF    TIIK    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,"  Luke  i,  35 — thus  declar- 
ing the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  power  of  the 
Highest. 

(5.)  He  is  represented  as  supreme.  The  gifts  just 
novv  mentioned,  the  donation  of  which  requires  the  exer- 
tion of  prescience,  omniscience,  and  omnipotence,  are  said 
to  be  by  the  Spirit  "  divided  to  every  man  severally  as  he 
will,"  1  Cor.  xi,  11.  Even  Mr.  G.  acknowledges  his  su- 
premacy :  "That  its  (the  Holy  Spirit's)  commands  are  to 
be  obeyed,  we  know,  because  they  are  the  commands  of 
God."  (Vol.  i,  p.  131.) 

3.  The  word  of  God  is  said  to  be  the  word  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  "  God,"  says  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews,  '*  at 
sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners,  spake  in  time  past 
unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,"  Heb.  i,  1.  They  said, 
"  Thus  saith  Jehovah,"  Isa.  xlii,  5.  "  All  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  2  Tim.  iii,  16.  On  the 
other  hand,  "  No  prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  pri- 
vate interpretation.  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old 
time  by  the  will  of  man ;  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  2  Pet.  i,  20,  21, 
"  For  David  himself  said  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c.,  Mark 
xii,  36.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness  unto  us  :  tor 
after  that  he  had  said  before,  This  is  the  covenant  that  I 
will  make  with  them,"  &c.,  Heb.  x,  15.  It  would  be 
easy  to  multiply  passages  to  the  same  purpose.  But  these 
are  enow.  It  is  an  important  observation,  that  in  the  lat- 
ter passage  the  Holy  Ghost  is  represented  as  the  God  who 
had  made  a  covenant  with  Israel.  Let  the  reader  compare 
with  it  the  following  : — "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith 
Jehovah,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the 
house  of  Israel,"  &lc.,  Heb.  viii,  8. 

4.  The  works  of  (iod  are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 
"  He  that  built  all  things  is  God,"  Heb.  iii,  4.  "Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  thy  Redeemer,  and  he  that  formed  thee 
from  the  womb,  lam  Jeiiovah  that  maketh  all  things; 
that  stretcheth  fortii  the  heavens  alone  ;  that  spreadeth 
abroad  the  earth  by  myself"  Isa.  xliv,  24.  Yet  these 
works,  which  Jehovah  hath  wrcaigiit  alone,  and  by  him- 
.Self,  were  wrought  by  the  Spirit  of  Cnxi.      "  The  Spirit  of 

God  moved  upon  the  face  ot^  the  waters,"  Gen.  i,  2.  "  By 
his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens,"   Job  xxvi,  13, 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.  113 

Such  are  the  testimonies  of  the  sacred  writers  to  the 
proper  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  any  addition  to 
them  be  wanting,  it  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  G.,  whose 
arguments  will  clear  up  whatever  remains  of  difficulty, 
thus  : — 

"  Omnipresence  is  exclusively  a  divine  attribute.  Yet 
I  appeal  to  you  to  say  what  are  the  representations  you 
have  commonly  received  from"  Christ  and  his  apostles 
concerning  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  "  Are  they  not,  that  he  is 
everywhere,  at  all  times  present  with  you  1  What  is  this 
but  the  divine  attribute  of  omnipresence  ?" 

"  Is  he  not  also  represented  to  you  as  omniscient  ?  Does 
he  not  dive  into  your  most  secret  thoughts  ?  Has  he  not 
access  to  your  hearts  ?  Does  he  not  suggest  to  you  mo- 
tives of  action?  What  is  this  but  the  divine  attribute  of 
omniscience?" 

"  Does  he  not  possess  the  power  of  changing  the  laws 
of  nature,  by  the  operation  of  a  miracle  ?"  "  Has  he  not 
also  the  power  of  prescience  ?  This  being  is  represented 
as  foreknowing  the  counsels  of  God." 

"  These  attributes  are  all  divine.  And,  if  there  actually 
be  a  being  possessing  these  attributes,  that  being  ought 
to  be  a  deity.  If  he  be  a  deity,  he  ought  to  be  worship- 
ped."    (Voi.  i,  pp.  19,  20.) 

Thanks  to  Mr.  G.  for  thus  saving  us  the  trouble  of 
proving  that  divine  worship  ought  to  be  rendered  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  "  He  which  persecuted  us  in  times  past, 
now  preacheth  the  faith  which  once  he  destroyed !" 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Of  the  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

To  a  being  like  man,  who  knows  noting  of  the  essence 
of  any  of  the  creatures  of  God,  it  is  absolutely  impossible 
to  entertain  precise  and  adequate  ideas  of  the  Most  High. 
God  h^  therefore  been  pleased  to  make  himself  known  to 
us  by  analogy.  This  method  is  to  be  distinguished  from 
that  which  the  Socinians  call  call  metaphorical.  Metaphor 
in  their  hands  is  a  mere  figure  of  rhetoric  :  a  form  of  speech 
in  which,  for  the  sake  of  either  beauty  or  force,  any  qua- 
10* 


114  THE    DOCTEINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

lity  not  proper  to  the  subject  is  attributed  to  it ;  and  iii 
the  explication  of  which,  that  the  subject  may  be  viewed 
in  its  own  hght,  the  borrowed  idea  is  to  be  exchanged  for 
the  proper  one  which  it  represents.  In  this  case  the  sub- 
ject is  supposed,  when  stripped  of  its  ornament,  to  be  well 
understood.  It  is  only  an  artificial  method  of  dressing  up 
an  idea  of  which  we  have  already  some  conception.  The 
analogical  method  of  teaching  is  very  different.  It  is 
founded  in  a  certain  resemblance,  in  circumstances,  be- 
tween two  things  which  are  in  their  nature  different. 
That  resemblance  is  supposed  to  be  distinctly  perceived 
by  the  teacher,  though  not  by  the  learner.  In  this  case 
ideas  are  borrowed  from  such  things  as  are  known  to  the 
learner,  and  applied  to  the  thing  unknown  to  him ;  and 
these  borrowed  ideas,  which  are  sufficiently  plain  and  in- 
telligible, are  made  to  stand  for  the  precise  idea  which  the 
learner  is  incapable  of  entertaining.  To  receive  instruc- 
tion in  this  manner,  the  figure  is  not  to  be  w  ithdrawn  that 
the  subject  may  be  understood ;  for  the  subject  can  be 
understood  only  by  retaining  it.  The  idea  thus  communi- 
cated is  not,  however,  to  be  entertained  as  the  precise 
idea  (i.  e.,  the  altogether  proper  and  perfect  picture)  of 
the  thing  in  question,  (for  it  is,  "  a  shadow,  and  not  the 
very  image  of  the  thing;")  but  as  the  best  idea  of  it  of 
which  we  are  capable. 

It  is  by  this  analogical  method,  God  has  been  pleased  to 
make  to  mankind  the  brightest  discoveries  of  himself 
"  We  know  only  in  part."  "  We  see,  <5t'  eaonrpov  ev 
aiviyfiari,  through  a  mirror,  in  an  enigma,"  1  Cor.  xiii, 
12.     For  instance  : — 

"  God  is  light."  The  idea  suggeste'il  by  this  assertion 
is,  that  there  is  a  certain  analogy  between  (lod  and  light. 
What  light  is  to  the  natural  world,  God  is  to  the  spiritual. 
But  liglit  is  matter,  and  is  divisible  and  movable.  la 
God  then  divisible  and  movable  matter?  No:  God  is 
spiritual  light.  But  what  consistency  is  there  between 
spirituality  and  matter  ?  None  at  all.  The  idea  is '-not 
the  very  image ;"  it  is  but,  as  it  were.  "  a  shadow"  of 
God.  But  wc  must  not  lay  it  aside,  for  it  is  one  of  the 
best  we  can  have.  We  speak  as  the  oracles  of  God 
when  we  say,  "  God  is  liglit,"  though  the  idea  is  not 
•trictly  compatible  with  the  spirituality  which  we  attribute 


THE    DOCTRINE    OP   THE    TRINITY.  115 

(o  him.  The  spirituaUty  of  God  is  not,  however,  contra- 
dictory  to  his  real  nature,  but  to  our  imperfect  idea  of 
him.  If  our  idea  of  him  were  perfect,  there  would  not  be 
even  the  appearance  of  inconsistency.     Again  : — 

"  God  is  a  Spirit."  That  is,  God  is  something  analo- 
gous to  the  human  spirit.  Of  the  nature  of  our  own 
spirit  we  have  no  precise  idea  ;  although  we  have  some 
idea  of  its  properties.  But  if  we  had  the  most  definite 
idea  of  our  own  spirit,  that  idea  would  be  infinitely  short 
of  him  who  is  a  Spirit  very  different  from  ourselves. 
The  idea  then  conveyed  by  these  words  is  not  the  pre- 
cise and  perfect  idea  of  God.  Must  we  then  relinquish 
it  ?  No  :  for  we  have  no  substitute  for  it.  It  is  the  idea 
which  God  himself  has  suggested.  Yet  the  same  diffi- 
culty occurs  here  which  we  meet  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  :  to  this  imperfect  and  finite  idea  we  attribute  in- 
finite perfections.  There  is  something  in  the  idea  con- 
tradictory to  what  we  ascribe  to  him  whom  it  is  supposed 
to  represent.  But  all  the  apparent  contradiction  arises 
from  the  imperfection  of  our  idea.  We  have  no  alter- 
native, however,  but  imperfect  knowledge,  or  perfect 
ignorance. 

As  by  analogy  God  has  discovered  to  us  his  nature  in 
general,  so,  by  analogy,  he  has  discovered  to  us  that  great 
mystery  of  his  nature,  the  distinction  between  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  respective  relation 
of  each  of  them  to  the  other. 

1.  The  first  analogy  which  we  trace  is  that  of  matter, 
form,  and  motion.  It  is  not  asserted  that  God  is  any- 
where  said  to  be  a  material  being.  The  passage  to 
which  we  refer  is  that  in  which,  speaking  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  apostle  says  he  "  was  ev  /lopcprj  '^tov,  in  the  form  of 
God,"  Phil,  ii,  6.  Now  it  is  granted  that  "  God  is  a 
Spirit."  He  is  not  an  extended,  solid  substance ;  and, 
properly  speaking,  he  has  no  external  form.  Moses, 
therefore,  reminded  the  children  of  Israel,  "  Ye  saw  no 
similitude,"  Deut.  iv,  12.  Form  is  predicated  of  God 
improperly,  and  under  the  borrowed  idea  of  matter.  Here 
then  we  have  the  idea  of  matter  and  its  form.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  spoken  of  as  of  matter  in  motion.  "The  Spirit 
of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,"  Gen.  i,  2. 
It  is  spoken  of  as  "descending,"  "coming,"   and  "go- 


116  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

ing,"  Luke  iii,  22;  John  i,  32,  &c.  ;  1  Chron.  xii,  19; 
1  Kings  xxii,  24  ;  2  Chron.  xviii,  23.  Motion,  however, 
does  not  properly  belong  to  spirit,  especially  to  the 
omnipresent  Spirit.  It  is  therefore  attributed  to  imma- 
terial substance,  under  the  borrowed  idea  of  matter  in 
motion.  We  have  then  the  ideas  of  matter,  of  the  form 
of  matter,  and  of  matter  in  motion.  What  the  internal, 
unknown  essence  of  matter  is  to  material  substance, 
that  the  unknown  Father  is  in  the  divine  nature.  What 
the  form  of  matter  is  to  the  internal,  unknown  essence 
of  matter,  that  the  Son  is  to  the  Father.  As  the  un- 
known essence  of  matter  is  perceived  and  distinguished 
only  by  its  external  form,  so  the  Father  is  perceived  and 
known  only  through  the  Son.  As  matter  operates  upon 
matter  only  by  motion,  so  God  operates  on  his  creatures 
only  by  the  Spirit. 

2.  The  next  analogy  on  which  we  shall  remark,  is  that 
of  the  sun,  its  light  and  its  vital  influence.  The  sacred 
writers,  in  speaking  of  God,  often  allude  to  the  sun,  which  is 

Of  this  great  world  both  eye  and  soul. 

"  Unto  you  that  fear  my  name,  shall  the  Sun  of  right- 
eousness  arise,"  Mai.  iv,  2.  What  the  internal,  unknown 
substance  is  in  the  sun,  that  the  Father  is  in  the  god- 
head. As  from  the  former  all  natural  light  proceeds,  the 
latter  is  "the  Father  of  lights."  What  perceptible  light 
is  to  the  internal,  unknown  substance  of  the  sun,  that  the 
Son  is  to  the  Father  :  the  a-avyaap.a  ttjc  ihitjc,  "  bright- 
ness of  his  glory."  The  Son  is  therefore  "  the  light  of 
the  world."  As  the  sun  is  seen  only  by  the  light  of  his 
beams,  and  his  beams  impress  on  all  nature  an  image  of 
the  sun,  so  the  Father  is  seen  only  in  the  Son,  and  in  the 
Son  all  who  have  eyes  to  see  beliold  the  Father.  In  like 
manner  what  the  vital  intiuence  of  the  sun  and  of  its 
beams  is  to  the  sun  and  to  its  beams,  that  the  Huly  Spirit 
is  to  tlie  Father  and  to  the  Son.  As  the  vital  influence 
flows  from  tlic  sun  through  its  beams,  so  the  Spirit  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Father  through  the  Son.  And  as  the  in- 
fluence  of  the  sun  is  the  material  origin  and  support  of 
vegetable  and  animal  life,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the 
spiritual  cause  of  life  to  animals  and  to  spirits.  *'  >N  ith 
thee  is  the  fountain  of  life  ;  and  in  thy  light  shall  we  see 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.  117 

light,"  Psa.  xxxvi,  9.  "  If  he  gather  unto  himself  his 
Spirit  and  his  breath,  all  flesh  shall  perish  together,  and 
man  shall  turn  again  unto  dust,"  Job  xxxiv,  14,  15. 

3.  Let  us  next  examine  the  analogy  of  being,  its  image 
and  its  operation.  God  is  being  itself:  "  I  AM"  is  his 
name.  Of  that  being  the  Father  is  the  unknown,  invisible 
essence.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the 
only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  tlie  bosom  of  the  Father, 
he  hath  declared  him."  Of  that  unknown  Being  the  Son 
is  the  visible  image.  "  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God,"  Col.  i,  15  ;  "  the  x^^P^-x^^vp  n^r  vTvo^-aoEuc  character 
of  his  substance,"  Heb.  i,  3.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  that 
Being  operating  on  all  created  beings.  "  There  are 
diversities  of  operations  ;  but  it  is  the  same  God  which 
worketh  all  in  all."  "  All  these  worketh  that  one  and  the 
self-same  Spirit,"  1  Cor.  xii,  6-11.  The  Father  is  God 
hidden  from  us  ;  the  Son  is  God  revealed  to  us;  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  God  working  in  us. 

4.  There  is  also  an  allusion  to  mind,  discourse,  and 
breath  or  wisdom.  Mr.  G.  says,  "  Our  most  sublime 
conception  of  God  is  as  the  all-pervading  Mind."  (Vol. 
i,  p.  13.)  This  Mind  has  its  Xoyoc,  word,  discourse,  or 
reason  :  "  His  word  is  called  o  loyo^,  the  Word  of  God," 
Rev.  xix,  13  ;  John  i,  1.  As  the  word,  or  discourse  of 
man,  is  conceived  by  his  mind — is  originally  in  his 
mind — is  an  image  of  his  mind — when  uttered,  displays 
his  mind — and  his  mind  is  displayed  only  by  tiiat  dis- 
course— so  the  Word  of  God  is  conceived  by  the  Father 
— is  originally  in  the  Father — is  an  image  of  the  Father  ; 
in  coming  forth  from  the  Father,  displays  the  Father — 
and  the  Father  is  displayed  only  by  him.  Again  :  discourse 
is  both  internal  and  external.  It  is  ratio  vel  oratio  :  rea- 
son or  speech.  Considered  in  the  first  point  of  view, 
wisdom  is  the  support  of  reason,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  wisdom  of  God.  "  Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of 
God,  &c.,"  Luke  xi,  49.  Considered  in  the  latter  point 
of  view^  breath  is  the  support  of  speech  :  and  the  Son 
spake  by  the  Holy  Spirit  or  breath.  "  Through  the  Holy 
Ghost  he  gave  commandments  unto  the  apostles,"  Acts  i, 
2.  Hence  when  the  Father,  whom  no  man  hath  known, 
sent  the  Word  to  declare  him,  he  sent  upon  him,  for  that 
purpose,  the  Spirit  without  measure. 


118  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

5.  The  last  analogy  which  we  shall  examine,  and  that 
which  is  most  generally  referred  to  in  Scripture,  is  that  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  one  who,  sent  by  the  Father 
and  the  Son  is,  on  account  of  the  offices  which  he  sus- 
tains,  called  the  Comforter.  The  allusions  by  which 
this  distinction  is  made  are  very  obvious.  We  have  a 
sufficiently  clear  idea  of  the  relation  of  a  son  to  a 
father.  We  equally  understand  what  it  is  for  one  to  be 
sent  by  a  second,  in  the  name  of  a  third,  to  execute  the 
purposes  of  both.  Such  are  the  mission,  and  the  circum- 
stances of  the  mission,  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Let  any  one  read  without  prejudice  the  following  pas- 
sages, and  make  up  his  mind  as  to  the  nature  ot'  the  dis- 
tinction which  is  there  made  between  the  three.  '•  I  will 
pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter." 
"  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the 
Father  will  send  in  my  name,  cKeivoc,  he  shall  teach  you  all 
things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatso- 
ever  I  have  said  unto  you."  "When  the  Comforter  is 
come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even 
the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father, 
eKELvoc,  he  shall  testify  of  me."  "  I  have  yet  many  things 
to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit 
when  EKEivor,  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth  :  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  but 
whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak  ;  and  lie  shall 
show  you  things  to  come.  Ekeivoc  he  shall  glorify  me  ; 
for  he  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you." 

Every  one  who  reads  tliese  verses  will  acknowledge 
that  the  distinction  here  made  is  the  distinction  of  three 
persons.  Mr.  G.  himself  has  granted' it.  While  he  »mi. 
formly  acknowledges  a  personal  distinction  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  of  the  Spirit  he  even  says,  '•  It  wotdd 
have  been  next  to  an  impossibility  not  to  have  repeatedly 
personified  this  divine  influence."  (Vol.  i,  p.  173.)  Tliis 
is  all  that  at  present  we  ask.  It  is  enougli  tiiat  the  Soci- 
nians  themselves  authorize  us  thus  to  denominate  the 
ideas  which,  by  these  forms  of  speech,  are  conveyed. 
Let  it  then  be  clearly  understood  that  precisely  in  this 
sense  we  make  use  of  the  word  person  and  its  derivatives; 
viz.,  to  Hx  an  idea  which,  in  the  use  of  the  same  terms, 
equally  strikes  the  mind  of  a  Socinian  and  of  a  Christian 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.  119 

believer.  This  idea  is  one  of  those  analogies  by  which 
the  sacred  writers  set  forth  the  distinction  which  exists 
between  the  three. 

Now  since  the  sacred  writers  have,  in  every  case,  taught 
us  how  to  view  this  subject  by  analogy,  we  have  no  proper 
and  precise  ideas  of  it.  We  have  no  criterion  to  which  to 
bring  any  one  of  these  similitudes  but  by  comparing  one 
with  another.  To  oppose  one  to  another  of  them,  (the 
common  practice,)  is  not  the  way  to  receive  instruction ; 
because  they  all  stand  upon  the  same  authority,  and  no- 
thing but  partiality  to  one's  own  opinion  can  assign  a 
reason  why  this  rather  than  that  shall  be  relinquished. 
The  only  plan  that  can  be  vindicated  is  to  assign  to  each 
of  them  its  proper  department,  to  compare  them  together 
for  the  correction  of  each  other,  and  to  adopt  a  system 
v/hich  comprehends  them  all. 

In  attempting  to  lay  down  such  a  plan,  it  must  be  ob- 
served that  of  the  five  analogies  which  have  been  exa- 
mined, every  one  gives  us  some  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity ;  but  one  part  of  that  doctrine  is  more  perfectly 
taught  by  one  of  them,  and  another  part  by  another. 

1.  Some  of  them  more  perfectly  elucidate  the  unity  of 
the  three.  That  unity  would  never  be  inferred  from  the 
analogy  of  Father,  Son,  and  Comforter.  The  idea  which 
we  have  of  three  persons,  is  that  of  three  distinct  beings. 
But  matter,  form,  and  motion  include  only  one  being.  The 
ideas  of  fire,  light,  and  vital  influence,  imply  no  more  than 
one  sun. 

2.  Some  of  them  show,  much  better  than  the  rest,  that 
the  distinction  is  essential,  necessary,  and  eternal.  Mat- 
ter may  possibly  be  without  motion  ;  but  light  and  heat  are 
essential  to  the  sun,  which  cannot  be  supposed  for  a  mo- 
ment  to  exist  as  the  sun  without  them  :  and  energy  is 
inseparable  from  a  living,  spiritual,  and  perfect  being. 
There  is  not  a  perfect  agreement  between  human  paternity 
and  filiation,  and  the  doctrine  of  God  and  his  eternal  Word. 
Tlie  generation  of  Him  "  whose  goings  forth  have  been 
from  o(,old,  from  everlasting,"  Micah  v,  2,  is  not,  like 
human  generation,  a  process  which  has  a  beginning.  It 
is  not  the  generation  of  an  infant,  which  must  be  nourished 
that  it  may  grow  up  to  manhood  ;  but  of  one  who  is  "  the 
same   yesterday,   to-day,  and   for  ever."     It  is  not  the 


120  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   TKINITY. 

generation  of  one  being  by  another  being  ;  for  *'  the  Word 
was  God."  It  is  not  the  generation  of  one  who  may  again 
be  annihilated ;  for  "  the  Son  abidcth  for  ever."  In  all 
these  points  the  analogy  is  lost.  But  here  the  Scriptures 
atiord  us  another  source  of  ideas  :  an  analogy  which  takes 
up  the  subject  where  the  preceding  seems  only  to  contra- 
diet  what  tlie  Scriptures  have  clearly  revealed.  When  the 
ideas  of  a  Fatlier  and  his  Son  no  longer  serve,  the  ideas 
of  a  Being,  and  his  image  conceived  by  himself,  are  to  be 
substituted.  Here  then  we  have  a  new  order  of  ideas. 
We  lay  aside  the  relation  of  paternity  and  filiation,  and 
consider  God  as  an  eternal,  ever  perfect  Mind,  always 
capable  of  knowing  himself;  always  actually  knowing 
himself;  always  conceiving  an  image  of  himself ;  to  whom 
it  is  never  possible  that  he  should  be  without  an  image  of 
himself,  conceived  by  himself;  whose  image  of  himself, 
so  conceived,  must  be  always  perfect  as  himself,  because 
he  always  perfectly  knows  himself  and  contemplates  him- 
self with  a  capacity  to  comprehend  all  hia  own  perfection  ; 
who,  because  he  is  perfect,  must  perfectly  conceive  his 
own  image;  whose  image  can  never  vanish,  because  he 
cannot  forget  himself,  and  because  he  must  love  that  image 
which,  like  himself",  is  perfect  ;  and  lastly,  who  can,  by 
that  image  of  himself,  which  he  has  conceived,  discover 
himself  to  any  intelligent  being,  in  proportion  to  the  capa- 
city of  the  recipient.  It  is  equally  obvious  that  an  all- 
perfect  and  eternal  Mind  can  never  have  existed  without 
its  ?uyog  reason  or  discourse,  and  the  wisdom  by  which 
that  reason  is  sustained.  These  comparisons  illustrate 
the  essential  necessity  of  the  distinctions  of  the  trinity. 

3.  The  nature  of  the  distinction,  utider  the  Christian 
economy,  is  best  illustrated  by  the  personal  distinction  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Comforter.  In  prosecuting  the  allusion 
to  human  |taternity  and  filiation,  the  sacred  writers  have 
taken  a  scope  that  could  not  li^ive  been  allowed  by  any 
other  of  those  coin|)arisons  which,  on  other  occasions,  they 
have  so  much  improved.  As  a  son  is  begotten  of  his 
father,  the  Son  of  God  is  called  "  the  only-begotten  Son." 
John  ill,  1(),  «S:c.  As  a  father  conveys  to  his  son  perfect 
humanity,  ''  it  |)Ieased  the  Father  that  in  him  (his  dear 
Son)  should  all  fiilness  dwell ;"  even  "all  the  fiilness  of 
the  godhead,"  Col.  i,  19  ;  ii,  9.     As  a  son  has  all  the 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  121 

members,  senses,  and  faculties,  which  his  lather  has,  "  All 
that  the  Father  hath  (said  the  Son)  is  mine,"  John  xvi,  15. 
Even  Mr.  G.  ascribes  to  him  the  "  divine  perfections." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  200.)  As  a  father  loveth  his  son,  so  the  Father 
says,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  delight,"  Matt, 
xvii,  5.  As  a  father  intrusts  his  affairs  with  his  confiden- 
tial  son,  and  makes  him  the  heir  of  his  property,  so  "  the 
Father  loveth  the  Son, — hath  given  all  things  into  his 
hand,"  John  iii,  35  ;  "  and  hath  appointed  him  heir  of  all 
things,"  Heb.  i,  2.  And  lastly.  As  a  son  obeys,  serves, 
and  honours  his  father,  so  the  Son  of  God  obeys,  serves, 
and  honours  the  Father.  How  little  of  this  could  with  pro- 
priety be  said  under  any  otiier  of  those  heads  of  distinction 
by  which  the  sacred  writers  have  on  other  occasions  illus- 
trated the  subject.  In  like  manner,  no  other  than  the  per- 
sonal distinction  could  have  warranted  the  Holy  Spirit's 
being  spoken  of  as  "  searching  all  things,  even  the  deep 
things  of  God,"  as  "  knowing  the  things  of  God,"  as 
''  hearing  what  he  should  speak,"  as  "  taking  of  the  things 
of  the  Son,  and  showing  them  to  us,"  as  instructing,  wit- 
nessing, admonishing,  reproving,  comforting,  wilUng,  call- 
ing men  to  the  ministry,  commanding,  and  interceding. 
And  farther  :  we  could  not  speak  with  apparent  propriety, 
of  the  form  praying  the  essence  to  send  the  motion :  of  a 
vital  influence  showing  to  mankind  the  things  of  the  light 
which  is  returned  to  the  sun :  of  an  image  which  is  re- 
sorbed  by  its  original,  and  an  energy  which  is  come  to 
supply  its  place  :  or  of  a  word,  which  knows,  and  loves, 
and  obeys  the  mind  from  which  it  proceeds,  which  is  re- 
turned to  the  bosom  from  whence  it  came,  and  which  has 
left  its  breath  behind  to  execute  its  commands,  and  to  com- 
fort  mankind  during  its  absence.  These  scriptural  dis- 
tinctions, it  is  evident,  are,  in  such  cases,  of  no  use  ;  and  to 
apply  them  to  such  doctrines  of  Scripture,  would  only  be  to 
give  to  truth  the  colour  of  absurdity.  The  personal  dis- 
tinction is,  in  such  cases,  absolutely  necessary.  And  this 
distinction,  the  most  perfect  we  have  found,  applied,  as  the 
sacred  writers  have  applied  it,  makes  all  these  truths  plain, 
natural,  and  easy. 

On  the  whole,  we  have  learned,  1.  That  the  trinitarian 
distinction  is  revealed,  and  consequently  can  be  known 
only  by  analogy  ;  and  therefore,  as  being  revealed  only  by 
11 


122  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY. 

imperfect  shadows,  is  still  a  mystery.  2.  That,without 
comprehending  the  exact  truth,  we  cannot  judge  of  the 
analogy  between  that  truth  and  any  other  mean  of  eluci- 
dation  ;  and  therefore  it  is  presumptuous  to  attempt  to  ex- 
plain that  distinction  in  any  other  way  than  that  in  which 
it  is  explained  by  divine  revelation.  3.  That,  since  the 
divine  Author  of  the  Christian  revelation  best  knows  in 
what  degree,  and  under  what  form,  we  are  capable  of  re- 
ceiving the  truth,  and  which  of  all  possible  views  of  that 
truth  arc  likely  to  be  most  udvantageous  to  us,  it  becomes 
us  to  adopt  such  opinions,  and  to  hold  such  language,  as 
the  Scriptures  have  suggested.  Or,  in  the  more  appro- 
priate expressions  of  St.  Paul,  we  should  speak  of  the 
things  of  God,  "  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teach- 
eth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth."  4.  That  the 
Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  not  only  when 
they  make  a  personal  distinction  between  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  also  when  they  make  a 
distinction  which  is  not  personal.  5.  That  our  best  con- 
ceptions of  the  subject  are  very  imperfect,  and  therefore, 
unless  we  adopt  all  those  modes  of  elucidations  which  are 
used  by  the  sacred  writers,  we  cannot,  in  the  explanation 
of  the  Scriptures,  avoid  falling  into  many  absurdities. 
6.  That  none  of  those  allusions,  by  which  the  Scriptures 
illustrate  the  trinity,  should  be  pursued  beyond  the  line  of 
analogy.  7.  That  when  we  perceive  ourselves  to  be  led, 
by  the  abuse  of  scriptural  terms,  into  any  absurdity,  or 
into  any  doctrine  contrary  to  the  plain  letter  of  Scripture, 
we  ought  to  remember  that  we  have  another  order  of 
scriptural  ideas,  which  should  serve  as  a  clew  to  guide  us 
out  of  the  labyrinth.  8.  That  Christianity  requires  every 
one  of  its  disciples,  whether  he  embrace  or  reject  the  terms 
which  are  in  common  use,  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  a 
trinity  in  unity ;  to  place  it  on  its  proper  basis,  divine 
revelation  ;  and  to  impute  whatever  of  difficulty  or  appa- 
rent contradiction  he  meets,  not  to  the  unreasonableness 
of  the  doctrine,  but  to  the  imperfections  of  his  own  con- 
ceptioTis. 

•Si  quid  novisti  reclius  istis, 


Candidus  imperti ;  bi  non,  his  utere  mecum 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITV.       123^ 


CHAPTER  Vlir. 

Of  the  Origin  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Since  the  preceding  pages  were  written,  and  some  of 
them  were  already  printed,  Mr.  G.  has  published  his  9th, 
10th,  and  11th  lectures,  in  which  he  has  adopted  the  opi- 
nion that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is  the  result  of  a  gra- 
dual  corruption  of  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  Having 
zealously  endeavoured,  through  one  whole  volume  of  lec- 
tures, to  expunge  from  the  Scriptures  all  the  prominent 
evidence  of  what  he  denominates  "  the  principal  doctrines 
of  Christianity,"  on  the  supposition  that  he  has  perfectly 
succeeded,  he  proceeds  to  maintain  this  opinion  by  mul- 
tiplied references  to  the  fathers  of  the  primitive  church. 

If  they  who  profess  to  maintain  the  doctrines  which  he 
has  impugned,  are  prepared  to  surrender  to  him  the  well 
fortified  citadel  of  Scripture,  they  must  either  grant  to  him 
the  victory,  or  meet  him  to  finish  the  contest  in  the  ex- 
tensive fields  of  ecclesiastical  history. 

While  the  reader  hesitates,  and  hopes  to  find  some  alter- 
native, Mr.  G.  peremptorily  summons  him  to  surrender. 
"Look,  my  trinitarian  friend, at  the  ground  on  which  you 
stand  at  the  year  sixty-six.  The  apostles,  you  say,  enter- 
tained the  same  views  of  Christianity  as  yourself.  Well ; 
for  thirty-three  years  they  travel  into  different  parts  of  the 
world  for  the  sole  purpose  of  making  converts  to  the 
Christian  religion ;  the  whole  of  that  time  is  exclusively 
occupied  in  this  important  work  ;  and  multitudes  actually 
become  their  disciples.  An  account  of  their  transactions^ 
is  given  by  one  of  their  own  body  ;  but  he  totally  omits  to 
state  that  this  doctrine  of  a  trinity  was  one  of  the  doctrines 
which  they  taught.  Farther  :  in  the  course  of  these  thirty- 
three  years,  the  men  thus  employed  publish  twenty -two 
other  works;  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  in  none  of 
these  works  is  any  one  of  these  peculiar  phrases  to  be  found, 
trinity;"trinity  in  unity,  three  persons  in  one  God,  God  the 
Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  8.) 

If  the  reader  be  a  genuine  "  trinitarian  friend,"  and 
have  the  heart  of  a  Christian  soldier,  he  will  not  be  alarm- 
ed by  the  lofty  tone  which  Mr.  G.  has  assumed.     He  will 


124       ORIGIX    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITT. 

perceive  that  to  give  some  degree  of  plausibility  to  the 
supposition  that  the  doctrines  in  question  have  no  support 
from  Scripture,  this  Socinian  herald  has  adopted  the  con- 
trivance of  his  predecessors,  by  substituting  the  pecuhar 
phrases  of  human  invention  for  the  doctrines  taught  by 
divine  revelation. 

Without  any  implied  censure  on  those  who  deem  it  their 
duty  to  vindicate  the  phrases  to  which  Mr.  G.  has  object, 
ed,  and  who  think  themselves  adequate  to  the  task,  through- 
out the  whole  of  this  discussion  no  vindication  of  any  set 
of  phrases,  except  those  of  Scripture,  has  been  attempted. 
Lest  the  truth  of  God  should  be  exposed  to  contempt  by  be- 
ing identified  with  the  inventions  of  men,  it  has  been  de- 
signed to  extract  from  the  Scriptures  the  genuine  Christian 
doctrine,  as  much  as  may  be,  in  the  language  of  the  sacred 
writers :  to  "  speak  of  spiritual  things  in  spiritual  words," 
and  to  leave  the  judicious  reader  at  liberty  to  make  choice 
of  what  he  deems  the  most  appropriate  terms.  The  con- 
test is  not  on  our  part  about  words,  but  things.  When, 
therefore,  Mr.  G.  speaks  of  "  this  phraseology,"  as  be- 
ing  thought  "  so  essential  to  salvation,"  whom  does  his 
arguing  reprove  ?  (Vol.  ii,  p.  9.)  When  he  triumph- 
antly asks,  "  Should  one  of  your  missionaries,  whether  to 
the  east  or  the  west,  preach  one  single  year,  make  one 
single  convert,  publish  one  single  book  upon  the  doctrines 
he  was  sent  to  teach,  and  not  once  mention  his  import- 
ant subject,  (in  the  phraseology  so  strongly  objected  to.) 
how  would  you  think  he  had  executed  his  commission  ?" 
(vol.  ii,  p.  8,)  we  are  under  no  dithculty  ;  for  we  readily 
and  sincerely  answer  that  we  should  not,  on  this  ac- 
count, as  Mr.  G.  supposes,  ''  designate  him  a  faithless 
servant,  who  had  neglected  his  duty,  and  had  conceal. 
ed  the  word  of  God."  *»The  phraseology"  of  the  schools 
is  not  the  word  of  God,  but  the  word  of  man.  And  if 
he  "  had  not  siumniHi  to  declare  all  the  counsel  of  CJod," 
but  had  "  fully  preached"  the  v  unadulterated"  gospel  : 
if  he  had  been  succcssfid  in  making  converts  (not  So- 
cinian converts,  converts  to  a  mere  opinion,  but)  such 
as  St.  Paul  was  sent  to  make:  if  he  had  "turned  men 
from  darkness  to  liglit,  and  trom  the  power  of  Satan  to 
God,  that  they  might  receive  remission  of  sins,  and  an 
inheritance  among  all  them  that  are  sanctified  through 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE     TRINITY.       125 

faith  in  Christ  Jesus;"  we  should  approve  his  labours  and 
rejoice  in  his  success.* 

The  Socinians  themselves  use  many  phrases  which  are 
not  strictly  scriptural :  but  they  are  not  to  be  "  made 
offenders  for  a  word."  If,  in  the  language  of  Scripture, 
they  can  vindicate  their  metaphysical  explanation  of  that 
truth,  "  there  is  one  God,"  they  are  perfectly  at  liberty 
to  use  the  phrase,  "  the  unity  of  God."  If  they  can  thus 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  no  other  than  a  man,  they  will 
not  be  forbidden  to  insert  in  their  creed  the  words  "  sim- 
ple humanity."  And  if  they  can  demonstrate,  from  the 
same  source,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  only  the  abstract 
power  of  God,  we  will  hold  no  contest  with  them  on  ac- 
count  of  their  denominating  him  "  the  divine  energy,"  or 
"  an  attribute  of  God."  We  will  leave  the  "  strife  of 
words"  to  those  who  admire  and  love  it.  What  is  there 
then  unreasonable  in  our  conduct  if,  while  we  believe  the 
doctrine  of  the  preceding  chapters  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  we  find  it  convenient  to  avoid  circumlocution, 
by  expressing  our  opinion  in  such  terms  as,  we  are  aware, 
are  not  used  by  the  sacred  writers  ? 

Having  thus  replied  to  the  insidious  insinuation  of  Mr. 
G.'s  summons,  we  now  declare  more  directly  that  no 
force  which  he  has  at  his  command  shall  cause  us  to  sur- 
render the  strong  fortress  of  Scripture  authority.  Let  him 
**  walk  about  our  Zion,  and  go  around  about  her  ;"  let  him 
**  tell  her  towers,  mark  well  her  bulwarks,  and  consider 
her  palaces." 

Having,  in  the  four  preceding  chapters,  stated  our  opi- 
nion of  the  doctrines  under  discussion,  and  having  cxhi- 

*  "  I  dare  not,"  says  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  "  insisf  upon  any 
one's  using  the  word  trinity  or  person.  I  use  them  mj  self  without 
any  scruple,  because  I  know  of  none  better.  But  if  any  man  has 
any  scruple  concerning  them,  who  shall  constrain  fiim  to  use  theml 
I  cannot ;  much  less  would  I  burn  a  man  alive,  and  that  with  moist, 
green  wood,  for  saying,  '  Though  I  believe  tiie  Father  is  God,  the 
Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  yet  I  scruple  using  the 
words  triajty  and  persons,  because  I  do  not  find  those  terms  in  the 
Bible.'  " — {Sermons,  vol.  ii,  p.  21.) 

The  Rev.  John  Fletcher  says,  in  like  manner,  "  If  by  renouncing 
that  comprehensive  word  (trinity)  we  could  remove  the  prejudices 
of  deists  against  the  truth  contencled  for,  we  would  give  it  up,  and 
always  say,  The  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
is  what  we  mean  by  the  trinity." — {,Rat.  Vin.  of  the  Cath.  Faith.) 
11* 


126  ORIGI.\    OF    THE    DOCTRIXK    or    THE    TKIMTY. 

bitcd  and  established  what  we  deem  the  most  direct  and 
positive  proofs  that  that  opinion  is  scriptural,  we  are  now 
to  show  that  those  doctrines,  so  far  from  being,  as  Mr.  Ci. 
holds,  the  invention  of  latter  ages,  have  been  gradually 
discovered  from  the  dawn  of  divine  revelation  to  the  pcr- 
fec-t  day.  This  argument  does  not  rest  on  any  single 
text,  but  on  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture. 

"  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,"  Gen.  i,  1.  "The  original  word  D'hSn,  Elohim, 
God,  is  certainly  the  plural  form  of  h'^•,  el,  or  nS»v,  eloah." 
{Dr.  A.  Clarke,  in  loc.)  And  therefore  indicates  to  a 
Hebrew  reader  a  plurality. 

"  And  God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after 
our  likeness,"  Gen.  i,  36.  The  use  of  the  plural  pronouns 
in  this  passage  is  a  confirmation  of  the  inference  deduced 
from  the  preceding ;  and  the  pronouns,  being  personal, 
convey  the  idea  of  personality  as  well  as  of  plurality. 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  created  beings  were  em- 
ployed in  the  creation  of  man  ;  but  it  is  unequivocally 
declared  that  £/o7w/n,  "God  created  man  in  his  (own) 
image,"  Gen.  i,  27. 

When  man  was  fallen  from  his  original  rectitude,  "  the 
Lord  God  said,  Behold  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us," 
Gen.  iii,  22.  This  distributive  manner  of  speaking  indi- 
cates that  the  distinction  already  made  is  not  merely  ver- 
bal, but  real. 

When  the  Lord  God  cursed  the  author  of  the  sin  of 
our  first  parents,  and  promised  them  deliverance,  he  pro- 
mised that  deliverance  by  one  who  should  be  their  seed. 
"  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  be- 
tween thy  seed  and  her  seed  :  he  shetll  bruise  thy  head, 
and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,"  Gen.  iii,  15. 

Of  the  fulfilment  of  this  great  promise,  God  gave  fre- 
quent pledges,  by  the  appearance  of  a  divine  person  to  the 
patriarchs,  and  to  the  Jewish  cliiofs.  This  person  at  first 
appeared  under  the  human  form ;  but  before  his  depar- 
ture, his  divinity  was  generally  known  and  acknowledged 
by  those  to  whom  he  appeared,  and  witii  wiiom  he  con- 
versed.  By  being  denotninated  the  Word,  or  the  Angel 
of  Jehovah,  or  the  Captain  of  Jehovah's  host,  the  distinc- 
tion already  discovered  is  exhibited ;  but  by  being  also 
stvled  Jehovah,  his  divinity  is  maintained. 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.       127 

"  The  Word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Abram  in  a  vision, 
saying,  Fear  not,  Abram  :  I  am  thy  shield,  and  thy  ex- 
ceeding great  reward."  This  Word  of  the  Lord,  Abram 
addressed  as  Jehovah  :  "  And  Abram  said,  Jehovah, 
God,"  &c.,  Gen.  xv,  1,  2.  Compare  also  verses  4,  7, 
8,  18. 

"  Jehovah  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the  plains  of  Mamre. 
As  Abraham  sat  in  the  tent  door  in  the  heat  of  the  day, 
he  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  looked,  and,  lo,  three  men  stood  by 
him,"  Gen.  xviii,  1,  2.  One  of  these  is  called  Jehovah  : 
"  And  Jehovah  said  unto  Abraham,  Wherefore  did  Sarah 
laugh  ?" 

Of  these  men  two  proceeded  toward  Sodom.  Compare 
Gen.  xviii,  22  ;  xix,  1.  But  the  one  who  was  called  Je- 
hovah remained  and  communed  with  Abraham.  Of  him 
it  is  related :  "  And  Jehovah  said.  Shall  I  hide  from 
Abraham  that  thing  which  I  do  ?"  Gen.  xviii,  17.  "  And 
Jehovah  said.  Because  the  cry  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
is  great,"  &c.,  verse  20 ;  see  also  verses  22,  26,  <Scc. 
In  the  next  chapter,  still  keeping  up  the  distinction  which 
we  have  observed,  and  yet  maintaining  the  proper  divi- 
nity of  him  who  destroyed  the  devoted  cities,  it  is  said, 
"  Then  Jehovah  rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  Gomorrah 
brimstone  and  fire  from  Jehovah  out  of  heaven,"  Gen. 
xix,  24. 

"  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  that  God  did 
tempt  Abraham,  and  said  unto  him.  Take  now  thy  son, 
thine  only  son  Isaac,  whom  thou  lovest,  and  get  thee  into 
the  land  of  Moriah,  and  ofter  him  there  for  a  burnt-ofter- 
ing  upon  one  of  the  mountains  which  I  will  tell  thee  of," 
Gen.  xxii,  1,  2.  When  Abraham  had  perfectly  manifested 
his  faith  and  obedience,  "  the  angel  of  Jehovah  (or  the 
Angel  Jehovah)  called  unto  him  out  of  heaven,  and  said, 
Now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not 
withheld  tliy  son,  thine  only  son  from  me,"  Gen.  xxii,  12. 
Here  we  see  that  the  Angel  Jehovah  was  the  "  God"  who 
"  did  tempt  Abraham." 

It  is  ^U  more  remarkable  that,  on  this  occasion,  the 
"  Angel  Jehovah,"  who  had  required  Abraham  to  offer  up 
his  son,  and  to  offer  him  up  to  himself,  as  to  God,  "  called 
unto  Abraham  out  of  heaven  the  second  time,  and  said. 
By  myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  Jehovah ;  (he  could  swear 


12S       ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

by  no  greater;)  for  because  thou  hast  done  this  thing, 
and  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only  son  :  that  in 
blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  because  tliou  hast  obeyed  my 
voice,"  Gen.  xxii,  15-18.  Here  we  see  that  the  angel 
who  appeared  to  Abraham  was  the  God  who  commanded 
this  sacrifice  ;  to  whom  it  was  in  |)urpose  ofiered ;  who 
accepted  it  as  offered  to  himself;  who  made  the  great  pro- 
mise  to  Abraham  ;  and  who  sware  by  himself :  in  a  word, 
Jehovah. 

"The  angel  of  God  spake  unto  Jacob  in  a  dream, 
saying,  Jacob.  And  he  said,  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel, 
where  thou  anointedst  the  pillar,  and  where  thouvowedst 
a  vow  unto  me,"  Gen.  xxxi,  11,  13.  Now  the  God  of  Be- 
tiiel  is  he  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  And  behold  Jehovah  stood 
above  it  (the  mysterious  ladder)  and  said,  I  am  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Abraham  thy  father,  and  the  God  of  Isaac," 
Gen.  xxviii,  13.  And  the  vow  which  Jacob  vowed  to  him 
was  this  :  "  If  God  will  be  with  me,  and  will  keep  me  in 
this  way  that  I  go,  and  will  give  me  bread  to  eat,  and  rai- 
ment  to  put  on  so  that  I  come  again  to  my  father's  house 
in  peace  :  then  shall  Jehovah  be  my  God.  And  this  stone 
which  I  have  set  for  a  pillar,  shall  be  God's  house  :  and 
of  all  that  thou  shalt  give  me,  I  will  surely  give  the  tenth 
unto  thee,"  Gen.  xxviii,  20,  22.  To  Jacob,  therelbre,  it 
was  obvious  that  "the  angel  of  God"  was  Jehovah,  God 
himself. 

When  Jacob  was  returning  to  his  father's  house,  he 
"  was  left  alone  ;  and  there  wrestled  a  man  with  him  until 
the  breaking  of  the  day."  When  this  man  had  put  forth 
his  power,  and  by  a  touch  had  disjointed  .lacob  s  thigh. 
Jacob  discerned  his  divine  visitant,  and  said,  '•  I  will  not 
let  thee  go,  except  thou  bless  me.  And  he  said,  Thy 
name  shall  be  called  no  more  Jacob,  but  Israel  ;  for  as  a 
prince  hast  thou  power  with  God  and  with  men.  and  hast 
prevailed.  And  Jacob  asked  him,  and  said.  Tell  me,  I 
pray  thee,  thy  name  :  and  ho  said.  Wherefore  is  it  that 
thou  dyst  ask  after  my  name?  And  he  blessed  him  there. 
And  Jacob  called  the  name  of  the  place  Peniel :  for  I  have 
seen  God  face  to  face,  (said  he,)  and  my  life  is  preserved," 
Gen.  xxxii,  24-30.  Whatever  others  may  think,  it  was 
obvious  to  Jacob  that  this  man  was  no  other  than  God 
himself. 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.       129 

"  The  angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  Moses,  in  Horeb, 
in  a  flame  of  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush."  This  angel 
is  called  Jehovah,  God,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of 
Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob, — Jehovah,  God  of  the  He- 
brews,— I  am, — and  I  am  that  I  am, — throughout  the 
chapter.     Exod.  iii  ;  see  also  chap,  iv,  et  seq. 

When  Jehovah  sent  Moses  to  lead  his  people  Israel  to 
the  land  of  Canaan,  he  was  pleased  to  promise,  "  Behold, 
I  send  an  angel  before  thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the  way,  and 
to  bring  thee  into  the  place  which  I  have  prepared,"  Exod. 
xxiii,  20.  But  of  this  angel  Jehovah  said,  "  Beware  of 
him,  and  obey  his  voice  :  provoke  him  not ;  for  he  will  not 
pardon  your  transgressions,  for  my  name  is  in  him,"  Exod. 
xxiii,  21.  This  angel  then  had  the  power,  authority,  and 
name  of  Jehovah. 

"  When  Joshua  w'as  by  Jericho,  behold  there  stood  a 
man  over  against  him,  with  his  sword  drawn  in  his  hand : 
and  Joshua  went  unto  him,  and  said  unto  him.  Art  thou 
for  us,  or  for  our  adversaries  ?  And  he  said.  Nay,  but  as 
captain  (or  prince)  of  the  host  of  Jehovah  am  I  now  come. 
And  Joshua  (well  understanding  this  language)  fell  on 
his  face  to  the  earth,  and  did  worship,  and  said  unto  him. 
What  saith  my  Lord  unto  his  servant  ?  And  the  captain 
of  Jehovah's  host  (approving  this)  said  unto  Joshua,  (in 
the  language  of  Jehovah  to  Moses,)  Loose  thy  shoe  from 
off  thy  foot,  for  the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy," 
Josh.  V,  13-15.  This  captain  of  Jehovah's  host  is  imme- 
diately called  Jehovah  :  "  And  Jehovah  said  unto  Joshua," 
&c.,  Josh,  vi,  2. 

"The  angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  unto  Gideon,  and 
said  unto  him,  Jehovah  is  with  thee,  thou  mighty  man  of 
valour,"  Judg.  vi,  12.  Here  also  the  angel  is  styled  Je- 
hovah :  "  And  Jehovah  looked  upon  him,  and  said.  Go  in 
this  thy  might,  and  thou  shalt  save  Israel  from  the  hand  of 
the  Midianites:  have  not  I  sent  thee?"  See  Judges  vi,  14, 
16,  23. 

"  The  angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  Manoah  and  his 
wife.  And  Manoah  said  unto  his  wife.  We  shall  surely 
die,  because  we  have  seen  God."     See  Judges  xiii. 

Such  were  the  manifestations  which  God  gave  to  his 
people  till  the  time  of  the  judges  of  Israel. 

We   may  now  perceive  on  what  authority  Job  was 


130       OKIGIX    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRIMTY. 

enabled  to  say,  "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  (now)  liveth. 
and  that  he  shall  stand  at  the  latter  day  upon  the  earth," 
Job  xix,  26. 

Tiie  knowledge  of  the  Redeemer  of  mankind  was  still 
farther  imparted  to  David,  who  spake  of  him  as  the  Son 
and  the  (Messiah)  anointed  of  Jehovah:  "Jehovah  hath 
said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee,"  Psa.  ii,  7.  What  were  David's  views  of  his  person 
we  may  understand  from  his  subjoining,  "  Kiss  the  Son 
lest  he  be  angry,  and  ye  perish  from  the  way,  when  his 
wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little  :  blessed  are  all  they  that  put 
their  trust  in  him,"  Psa.  ii,  12.  For  the  saints  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  not  ignorant  that  "  cursed  is  the  man 
that  trusteth  in  (mere)  man  ;"  and  that  "  blessed  is  the 
man  that  trusteth  in  Jehovah,"  Jer.  xvii,  5,  7. 

That  David  wrote  the  forty-tifth  Psalm  with  reference 
to  the  expected  Messiah,  and  not  to  Solomon,  is  abun- 
dantly proved  iVom  the  psalm  itself.  The  language  of  the 
psalm  is  not  at  ail  applicable  to  Solomon.  He  was  not 
the  man  of  war,  who  "girded  his  sword  upon  his  thigh," 
ver.  3 — whose  "  right  hand  taught  him  terrible  things," 
ver.  4 — whose  "  arrows  were  sharp  in  the  hearts  of  the 
king's  enemies ;"  or  "  under  whom  the  people  fell,"  ver.  5. 
He  was  not  remarkable  for  "  loving  righteousness,"  or 
"  hating  iniquity,"  ver  7.  His  "  throne  is  (not)  for  ever 
and  ever,"  ver.  6.  His  children  were  not  "  made  princes 
in  all  the  earth,"  ver.  16.  Nor  do  "  the  people  praise" 
him  or  his  spouse  "  for  ever  and  ever,"  ver.  17.  Yet 
these  are  the  terms  in  which  David  speaks  of  the  subject 
of  this  psalm.  On  the  other  hand  these  terms  are  appli- 
cable to  the  Messiaii.  He  is  the  *' King,"  ver.  1,  set 
upon  tlie  hulv  iiill  of  Zion  :  compare  Psa.  ii,  6.  He  is 
••  taircr  than  the  children  of  men  ;  grace  is  poured  into  his 
lips,"  ver.  2.  He  is  "  anointed  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  his  fellows."  Him  "God  hath  blessed  forever  and 
ever,"  ver.  2.  Now  in  tliis  psalm,  of  which  the  Messiah 
is  so  clearlv  the  subject,  the  writer,  who  iuid  called  the 
"  King  "  tiie  Son  of  (iod,  in  his  addresses  to  this  "  King," 
says,  "Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."* 

•  Our  ari^unient  does  not  admit  of  our  quoting  in  this  place  the 
lestimonyofthi>  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  who,  however, 
cites  the  words  of  this  psalm  as  the  words  of  God  to  the  Son. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.       131 

The  Messiah  was  now  known  as  the  Son  of  G#d,  and 
his  name  was  deemed  a  mystery.  If  the  "  Angel  Jeho- 
vah"  said  to  Jacob,  "  Wherefore  dost  thou  ask  after  my 
name  ?"  and  to  Manoah,  "  Why  askest  thou  thus  after 
my  name,  seeing  it  is  secret"  (or  wonderful  ?)  Agur,  per- 
haps with  equal  reference  to  the  mystery  of  the  incarna- 
tion, asks  "  Who  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  or  de- 
scended ?  Who  hath  gathered  the  wind  in  his  fists  ?  Who 
hath  bound  the  waters  in  a  garment  ?  Who  hath  esta- 
blished all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ?  What  is  his  name  and 
what  is  his  Son's  name,  if  thou  canst  tell  ?"  Prov.  xxx,  4. 
Both  are  equally  mysterious. 

Isaiah,  so  often  and  so  justly  styled  the  evangelical 
prophet,  in  prospect  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  breaks 
out,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and 
the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder :  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The  mighty  God, 
The  Father  of  the  everlasting  age.  The  Prince  of  peace. 
Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace  there  shall 
be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  upon  his  king- 
dom, to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with  judgment  and 
with  justice,  from  henceforth  even  for  ever  !  the  zeal  of 
Jehovah  of  hosts  will  perform  this,"  Isa.  ix,  6,  7.  Having 
spoken  thus  of  the  humiliation  and  exaltation,  the  hu- 
manity and  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah,  he  returns  to  the 
same  subject  in  diiferent  language  :  "  There  shall  come 
forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  Branch  shall 
grow  out  of  his  roots,  and  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  shall  rest 
upon  him,"  Isa.  xi,  1,  2.  "And  in  that  day,"  says  he, 
"  there  shall  be  a  root  of  Jesse,  which  shall  stand  for  an 
ensign  of  the  people  ;  to  it  shall  the  Gentiles  seek,  and  his 
rest  shall  be  glorious,"  Isa.  xi,  10.  "  In  that  day  thou 
shalt  say.  Behold  God  is  my  salvation,  I  will  trust  (in  such 
a  Saviour)  and  not  be  afraid;  for  the  Lord  Jehovah  is 
my  strength  and  my  song  ;  he  also  is  become  my  salva- 
tion," Isa.  xii,  2.  "  It  was  impossible  for  a  spiritual  Jew 
to  read  this  description  of  the  Messiah's  peaceful  king, 
dom,  wi_JJiout  seeing  that  this  root  of  Jesse,  this  Holy 
One  of  Israel,  so  great  in  the  midst  of  Zion,  was  the  same 
wonderful  person  whom  the  prophet  had  just  before 
called  the  Son  given,  and  the  mighty  God ;"  (Fletcher's 
Rat.  Vin. ;)  that  he  was  that  Jehovah  who  should  become 
their  Saviour. 


132       ORIGIN    OK    THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY. 

The  same  prophet,  introducing  the  harbinger  of  the 
Messiah,  exclaims,  "  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the 
wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  Jehovah,  make  straight 
in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God.  And  the  glory 
of  Jehovah  shall  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it 
together,"  Isa.  xl,  3,  5. 

Again  :  "  O  Zion,  that  bringest  good  tidings,  say  unto 
the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold  your  God.  Behold  the  Lord 
God  will  come  with  strong  hand,  and  his  arm  shall  rule 
for  him  :  behold  his  reward  is  with  him,  and  his  work  be- 
fore him.  He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd,"  Isa. 
xl,  9-11.  Who  this  shepherd  is  the  Jews,  without  the 
New  Testament,  could  understand.  The  Prophel  Ezekiel 
would  inform  them,  "  1  will  set  one  shepherd  over  them, 
and  he  shall  feed  them,  even  my  servant  David,  he  shall 
feed  them,  and  he  shall  be  their  shepherd,"  Ezck.  xxxiv. 

Jeremiah  is  the  author  of  that  direct  testimony  to  the 
divinity  of  the  Messiah  :  "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith 
Jehovah,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch, 
and  a  King  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall  execute 
judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth.  In  his  days  Judah 
shall  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely  :  and  this  is 
his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  Jehovah  our  right- 
eousness," Jer.  xxiii,  5.  6.     (See  p.  91.) 

Zechariah,  speaking  prophetically  of  the  Messiah  as  the 
Shepherd  of  Israel,  says,  "  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my 
Shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts,"  Zech.  xiii,  7. 

Such  are  the  testimonies  which  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament  aflbrd  of  the  person  and  character  of  the  Mes- 
siah. If  we  inquire  what  they  taught  concerning  the  Holy 
Spirit,  we  shall  find  the  outlines  of  the  doctrine  which  we 
have  already  derived  from  the  New  Testament. 

That  in  the  Old  Testament  there  is  frequent  notice  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  is  too  obvious  to  need  any  proof.  As  he 
is  there  denominated  the  Spirit  of  God.  an  enlightened 
Jew  could  entertain  no  doubt  of  his  proper  divinity.  Mr. 
G.  has  granted  that  it  is  as  obvious  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  God,  as  that  the  spirit  of  man  is  man.  (See  Led.  vol. 
i,  p.  123.)  The  Old  Testament  is  not,  however,  without 
farther  proof  of  this.  "  The  hand  of  the  Lord  God  fell 
'there  upon  me — and  he  (the  Lord  God)  put  forth  the  form 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.      133 

of  a  hand,  and  took  me  by  a  lock  of  mine  head,  and  the 
Spirit  lift  me  up  between  the  earth  and  the  heaven,"  Ezek. 
viii,  13.  Here  the  same  Being  who  is  denominated  the 
Lord  God  is  also  denominated  the  Spirit.  Thus  in  Judg. 
XV,  14,  it  is  expressly  said,  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
mightily  upon  him"  (Samson.)  Yet  when  the  Spirit  de- 
parted from  him,  it  is  said,  "  He  wist  not  that  the  Lord 
was  departed  from  him,"  ver.  16,  20.  The  Spirit  of 
Jehovah  and  Jehovah  are,  therefore,  one  and  the  same 
Being. 

To  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, tlierefore,  attribute  the  divine  perfections  of  omni- 
presence,  omniscience,  and  omnipotence.  (See  pp.  110, 
111,  112.) 

Hence  even  the  Old  Testament  introduces  the  Spirit  of 
God  as  one  of  the  Elohim  to  whom  creation  is  ascribed. 
"  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters,"  Gen.  i,  2.  "  By  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the 
heavens,"  Job  xx,  30.  "  The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made 
me,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given  me  life," 
Job  XXX,  4.  "  Thou  sendest  forth  thy  Spirit,  they  are 
created  :  and  thou  renewest  the  face  of  the  earth,"  Psa. 
civ,  30. 

We  have  now  the  true  explanation  of  the  Elohim,  who 
in  the  beginning  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  "  By 
the  Word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the 
host  of  them  by  the  breath  (Heb.  Spirit)  of  his  mouth," 
Psa.  xxxiii,  6. 

This  great  subject  is  still  farther  illustrated  in  the  pur- 
posed work  of  redemption,  as  in  the  following  passages  : 
"  Hearken  unto  me,  O  Jacob,  and  Israel  my  called  :  I 
am  he ;  I  am  the  first,  I  also  am  the  last.  Mine  hand 
also  hath  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  my  right 
hand  hath  spanned  the  heavens  :  when  I  call  unto  them 
they  stand  up  together.  And  now  the  Lord  God  and  his 
Spirit  hath  sent  me,"  Isa.  xlviii,  12-16.  The  Jewish  reader 
Avould  perceive,  not  only  the  divine  character  of  the 
speaker,  bwt  his  mission  by  God  and  by  his  Spirit.  In  this 
passage  the  distinction  is,  like  what  we  have  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  a  personal  distinction.  One  person  is  the 
speaker,  two  others  have  sent  him.  Again  :  "  The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me,  (the  Messiah,  the  anointed,) 
12 


134      OKIGIN    OF   TIIE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY. 

because  the  Lord  has  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings 
unto  the  meek,"  &c.,  Isa.  Ixi,  1.     Once  more:  "  Seek  ye 
out  of  the  book  of  the  Lord,  and  read — tor  my  mouth  it 
hath  commanded,  and  his  Spirit  it  hath  gathered  ihem," 
Isa.  xxxiv,  16.     "  In  these  words  (says  Mr.  Jones)  there 
is  one  person  speaking  of  the  spirit  of  another  person." 
Such  are  some  of  the  many  passages  contained  in  the 
Okl  Testament,  by  which  the  doctrines  under  discussion 
have  been  gradually  discovered.     It  is  true  the  Socinians 
have  much  to  object  ;  and  in  the  course  of  this  develope- 
ment  we  have  taken  but  httle  notice  of  them.     And  it  is 
equally  true  that  we  also  have  much  to  say  in  contirma- 
tion  of  our  own  comments  on  these   passages.      Much 
useful  light  might  have  been  cast  on  the  subject  of  this 
chapter  bv  comparing  the  Old  Testament  with  the  New. 
But  such  a  measure,  whatever  good  purpose  it  might  have 
answered,  would  have  been  a  deviation  from  our  present 
design.     The  preceding  quotations  have  i)een  made    by 
way  of  appeal  to  the  candour  of  the  unprejudiced  reader, 
in  proof  that  the  doctrine,  though  not  the  phrase  of  tlie  tri- 
nity, originated  with  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  that  the 
very  doctrine  of  the  preceding  chapters  is  nearly,  if  not 
fullv  maintained  by  a  dispensation  preceding  the  Christian. 
The  qivestion  now  to  be  examined  is,  not  what  will  a  pre- 
judiced Socinian  object  to  the  language  of  the  Old  Testn- 
mcnt,  or  how  will  an  enlightened  Christian  comment  upon 
it  ;  but  what  was  the  light  in  which  this  part  of  divine 
revelation  would  strike  a  studious  and  unjirejudiccd  .lew? 
"The  Hebrew  doctors  supposed  the  tirst  verse  of  Ge- 
nesis to  contain  some  latent  mystery.     'I'lie  Rabbi  Ibba 
indeed  expressly  says  it  docs,  and  ivdds,  This  mystery  is 
not    to    be   revealed    till    the  coming  of  the    Messiah." 
(Simpson  on  the  Drily  of  Jesus,  p.  35v5.) 

"  An  eminent  Jewish  rabbi,  Simeon  ben  Joachi,  in  his 
comment  on  the  sixth  section  of  Leviticus,  has  these  re- 
markable  words  :  '  Come  and  see  the  mystery  of  the  word 
Elohim  :  there  are  three  degrees,  and  each  degree  by 
itself  -alone,  and  vet  notwithstanding  they  art;  all  one, 
and  joined  together  in  one,  and  are  not  divided  from  each 
other.'  "  (Dr.  A.  C'htrkc,  in  loc.) 

"The  Jewish  rabbi,  Liniborch,  tells  us  that  in  the  word 
Elohim  there  are  three  degrees,  each  distinct  by  itself,  yet 


ORIGIN    or   THE    DOCTRINE    OF  THE    TRINITY.  135 

all  one,  joined  in  one,  and  not  divided  from  one  another." 
{^Leslie's  Short  Method  with  the  Deists.) 

"  R.  Bechai,  a  celebrated  author  among  the  Jews,  dis- 
coursing of  the  word  Elohim,  has  these  words:  'Accord- 
ing to  the  cabalistical  way,  this  name  Elohim  is  two 
words,  namely.  El  him,  that  is,  they  are  God.  But  the 
explanation  of  the  Jod  is  to  be  fetched  from  Eccles.  xii,  1. 
Remember  thy  Creators.  He  that  is  prudent  will  under- 
stand it.  '  "  [Kidder^s  Demonstration  of  the  Messiah, 
part  iii,  page  81.) 

"  The  author  of  Midras  Tillim,  on  Exodus  xx,  5,  says, 
*  I  am  the  Lord,  thy  God,  a  jealous  God.'  Three  answering 
to  the  three  by  whom  the  world  was  made."  (Ibid.  p.  84.) 

The  Chaldee  paraphrase  does  undoubtedly  represent  the 
sense  of  the  Jews  in  general,  as  it  is  their  public  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture.  What  we  lind  common  and  frequent 
in  it  we  must  suppose  to  be  the  general  opinion  of  that 
people.  "  Now  it  is  certain  that  this  paraphrast  doth 
often  use  memra,  the  Word  of  God,  for  Jehovah,  God  him- 
self,  and  that  especially  with  relation  to  the  creation  of  the 
world.  As  Isa.  xlv,  12,  '  I  made  the  eartli,'  the  Chaldee 
translateth,  '  I  by  my  Word  made  the  earth.'  And  Genesis 
i,  27,  we  read,  '  Et  creavit  Deus  hominem.'  And  God 
created  man;  *  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  Verhum  Domini 
creavit  hominem.''  The  Word  of  God  created  man. 
^  And  most  clearly.  Gen.  iii,  8 :  Audierunt  vocem  Domini 
Dei ;'  they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God  ;  '  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase,  Et  audierunt  vocem  Yerhi  Domini 
Dei ;'  and  they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord 
God."  {Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  117.) 

On  the  celebrated  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  chap,  ix,  6,  uni- 
versally applied  to  the  Messiah,  the  Chaldee  paraphrase 
says,  "  His  name  shall  be  called  God,  a  man  enduring  to 
eternity,  Christ."  The  Syriac  says,  "  His  name  is  called 
Admiration,  and  Counsellor,  the  most  mighty  God  of 
ages."  The  Arabic :  '•  His  name  shall  be  called  the 
strong  God."  {Simpson  on  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  p.  96.)  In 
the  Vatican  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  this  passage  is  evident- 
ly mutilated.  There  the  Messiah  is  abridged  of  all  his 
high  titles,  and  is  simply  called,  "  HAeyahig  iSovh/g  ayyeXoc  : 
the  angel  of  the  great  counsel."  This  is  a  comment 
father  than  a  translation.     There  are,  however,  several 


186       ORIGIN    OF    THE    nOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRIJflTT. 

reasons  for  supposing  that  the  Seventy  originally  translated 
this  verse.  "  Eusebius  (D.  E.  p.  336)  gives  the  Greek 
version  uncorrupted, '  Wonderful  Counsellor,  mighty  God.' " 
{Simpson  on  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  p.  98.) 

The  Jews  attribute  also  the  name  Jehovah  to  the  Mes- 
siah. "  In  the  Sepher  Ikkarim,  1.  ii,  c.  8  :  '  The  Scrip- 
ture calleth  the  name  of  the  Messias,  Jehovah  our  right- 
eousness.' And  Midras  Tillim,  on  Psalm  xxi :  'God 
calleth  the  Messias  by  his  own  name,  and  his  name  is  Je- 
hovah ;'  as  is  said  Exod.  xv,  3,  "The  Lord  is  a  man  of 
war,  Jehovah  is  his  name."  And  it  is  written  of  the  Mes- 
sias, Jer.  xxiii,  6,  "  And  this  is  the  name  which  they  shall 
call  him,  Jehovali  our  righteousness."  Thus  Echa  Rabati, 
Lam.  i,  6,  '  What  is  the  name  of  the  Messias  ?  R.  Abba 
said,  Jehovah  is  his  name,  as  it  is  said,  Jer.  xxiii,  6  :  And 
this  ia  the  name  which  they  shall  call  him,  Jehovah  our 
righteousness.'  The  Simie  he  reports  of  Rabbi  Levi." 
(Pearson  on  tlie  Creed,  p.  149.) 

Such  were  the  opinions  of  the  Jews.  Whether  they 
were  founded  in  trutii  is  not  the  present  question.  It  is 
enough  that  they  held  such  opinions,  and  that  they  de- 
rived them  from  Moses  and  the  prophets.  We  proceed  to 
the  New  Testament. 

When  Jesus  hud  been  baptized  by  John,  in  Jordan,  he 
"  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water  :  and  lo,  the  hea- 
vens were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  like  a  dove,  and  ligiiting  upon  him.  And  lo, 
a  voice  from  heaven,  saying.  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  Matt,  iii,  16,  17.  Having  wit, 
nessed  this  introductory  revelation  of  the  Son  of  Gud,  the 
iiaptist  "  bare  witness  of  him  and  proclaimed,  saying, 
This  is  he  of  whom  I  spake,  lie  that  comctii  after  me  is 
preferred  belore  me,  for  lie  was  !)efore  me.  And  of  his  ful. 
ness  have  all  we  (already)  received,  and  grace  for  grace. 
For  the  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth 
came  (always)  by  Jesus  Cln'ist.  No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time  ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bo- 
som  of  the  Father,  he  hath  (always  hitherto)  declared 
him.  And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw  the  Spirit  dc- 
scen«liiig  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him. 
And  I  knew  him  not  :  but  that  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize 
with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon  w  hoiu  thou  slialt 


'ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITV.       137 

see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  tMI?  same 
is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  I  saw, 
and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God,"  John  i,  IS- 
IS, 32-34. 

The  meaning  of  this  phrase,  "  the  Son  of  God,"  we 
must  now  examine.  Under  the  Christian  dispensation 
mere  men,  because  they  are  "  the  offspring  of  God,"  and 
are  "  made  in  the  likeness  of  God,"  and  because  they  are 
restored  to  the  paternal  favour,  and  holy  image  of  God,  in 
Christ  Jesus,  are  denominated  "  the  sons  of  God."  In 
the  appellation  given  to  Jesus  Christ  there  is,  liowever, 
something  by  which  he  is  distinguished  from  all  others. 

1.  The  sons  of  men  are  constituted  the  sons  of  God 
through  him.  "  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave 
he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God.  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  his  name,"  John  i,  12,  •'  For  ye  are  all  the 
children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Gal.  iii,  26. 

2.  They  are  made  the  sons  of  God  by  adoption  :  "  pre- 
destinated  to  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ," 
Eph.  i,  5.  He  is  begotten  of  the  Father :  "  Jehovah  hath 
said  unto  me.  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee,"  Psa.  ii,  7.  He  is  therefore  called  God's  own  or 
proper  Son  :  "  He  that  spared  not,  tov  tSiov  vlov,  his  own, 
or  proper  Son,'' 

3.  To  distinguish  him  still  farther  from  all  others,  he  is 
repeatedly  styled  the  only  begotten  Son.  "  God  so  loved 
the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son."  In 
Mr.  G.'s  opinion  this  expression  only  means  "  well  or 
best  beloved  :"  in  proof  of  which  he  observes  that  "  Isaac 
is  called  the  only  begotten  son  of  Abraham,  who  had  an 
older  son  living  at  the  time."  (Vol.  i,  p.  339.)  This 
answer  is  plausible,  but  not  solid.  "  The  promises"  which 
Abraham  "  had  received"  related  to  a  son  whom  Sarah 
should  bear  to  him  ;  "  And  God  said,  (to  Abraham,)  Sarah 
thy  wife  shall  bear  thee  a  son  indeed  :  and  I  will  establish 
iny  covenant  with  him  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  and 
with  his  seed  after  him,"  Gen.  xvii,  15-19.  In  the  apos- 
tle's sens*,  therefore,  Isaac  was  Abraham's  only  begotten 
son  ;  the  only  one  in  whom  the  promises  could  be  fulfill- 
ed ;  the.  only  son  of  his  mother.  And  just  so  the  "  only 
begotten  Son  of  God"  is  a  Son  sui  generu  ;  the  only  one 
of  tliat  kind. 

12* 


138       ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY. 

4.  This  truth  our  Lord  has  illustrated,  and  this  inter- 
pretation he  has  confirmed,  wiien  in  allusion  to  himself  he 
says,  "  Having  yet  therefore  one  Son,  his  well  beloved,  he 
sent  him  also  last  unto  them,  saying.  They  will  reverence 
my  Son,"  Mark  xii,  6. 

5.  He  is  therefore  distinguished  from  Moses  and  the 
prophets  as  the  Son  of  God.  "  God,  who  spake  unto  the 
fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  to 
us  by  his  Son,"  Heb.  i,  1,  2.  "  Moses,  verily,  was  faithful 
in  all  l^is  house  as  a  servant ;  but  Christ  as  a  Son  over 
his  own  Tnouse,"  Heb.  iii,  5,  6. 

6.  God's  giving  his  Son  is  made  the  measure  of  the 
divine  benevolence  and  beneficence.  "  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  John  iii,  16. 
"  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for 
us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all 
things,"  Rom.  viii,  32.  But  if  Jesus  Christ  be  the  Son  of 
God  only  in  a  sense  in  which  mankind  in  general  may  be- 
come the  sons  of  God,  what  illustration  or  proof  does  such 
a  gift  afford  of  the  infinite  benevolence  or  beneficence  of 
the  Father? 

7.  The  greatest  possible  blessings  depend  on  our  be- 
lieving that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  "  Who  is  he  that  over- 
cometh  the  world,  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God,"  1  John  v,  8.  "  Whosoever  shall  confess 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  liini,  and  he 
in  God,"  1  John  iv,  15.  Is  it  probable  that  such  privileges 
should  be  attached  to  an  acknowledgment  that  Jesus 
Christ  was,  in  the  common  sense  of  the  word,  a  child  of 
the  Most  High? 

9.  Sometliing  extraordinary  must  be  intended  by  the 
phrase,  because  he  himself  says,  "No  one  knoweth  the 
Son,  but  the  Father,"  Matt,  xi,  27.  And  when  Simon 
Peter  confessed,  "  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God,  Jesus  answered  and  said.  Blessed  art  thou  Simon 
Barjona ;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto 
thco,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,"  Matt,  xvi,  17. 

Tiicse  observations  may  at  least  authorize  us  to  insti- 
tute  an  inquiry  into  the  particular  meaning  of  this  phrase. 

The  Socinians  uniformly  take  advantage  of  tliis  apel- 
lation,  and  of  many  tilings  which  arc  aflirmcd  concerning 
Jesus  Christ  as  "  the  Son  of  God,"  to  point  out  and  prove 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.       139 

his  "inferiority  and  subordination  to  the  Father."^  After 
the  manner  of  most  Trinitarians,  we  have  as  uniformly 
answered  their  arguments  by  applying  it  to  his  human 
nature.  (See  pp.  70-70.)  This  reply  is  not  an  evasion, 
but  is  founded  in  truth,  and  accords  with  the  declaration 
of  the  angel  to  Mary :  "  That  holy  thing  which  shall  be 
born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God,"  Luke  i,  35. 
We  now  contend  that  "  that  holy  thing"  which  was  "  born" 
of  the  virgin  was  called  ''  the  Son  of  God,"  because  it  was 
united  with  the  divine  nature ;  for  after  it  was  announced 
by  John  the  Baptist  that  Jesus  is  "  the  Son  of  God,"  it 
was  always  demonstrated  by  the  manifestation  of  his 
ilivine  perfections,  and  was  the  uniform  inference  which 
was  drawn  by  believers  from  such  manifestations. 

When  John  had  declared  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  the  next  day  he  pointed  out  "  the  Lamb  of  God"  to 
Andrew  and  another  of  his  disciples.  Andrew  brought  to 
Jesus  his  brother  Simon  Peter ;  and  Jesus,  by  showing  to 
Simon  how  perfectly  he  knew  him,  confirmed  to  him  the 
testimony  of  Andrew.  The  day  following,  Jesus  found 
Philip,  who,  being  of  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter,  had 
probably  learned  these  things  from  them,  and  called  him 
to  be  one  of  his  immediate  followers.  Thus  made  acquaint- 
ed with  the  character  of  Jesus,  "  Philip  findeth  Nathanael, 
and  saith  unto  him,  We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses, 
in  the  law  and  the  prophets,  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
the  son  of  Joseph."  When  Nathanael's  prejudice  was  van- 
quished,  and  he  was  coming  "  to  see,"  Jesus  confirmed  the 
testimony  of  Philip  by  demonstrating  his  omniscience. 
And  Nathaniel,  "■  believing,"  because  Jesus  said  unto  him, 
I  saw  thee  under  the  fig  tree,  "  answered  and  saith  unto  him, 
Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  King  of 
Israel,''  John  i,  35-51.  Thus  the  faith  of  the  apostles  was 
founded  on  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  con- 
firmed,  not  by  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  but  by  the  evidence 
of  his  omniscience. 

The  next  day  he  confirmed  their  faith,  by  a  raanifesta- 
tion  of  his  omnipotence,  when  he  turned  the  water  into 
wine.  "  This  beginning  of  miracles,"  says  the  evangelist, 
"  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  forth  his 
glory,  (the  glory  of  his  omnipotence  and  of  his  divine  na- 
ture,) and  his  disciples  believed  on  him,"  John  ii,  11: 


140       ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY* 

that  is,  they  believed  more  tirmly  the  testimony  of  John 
concerning  him. 

Tlie  man  who  was  born  bUnd,  and  whose  eyes  our  Lord 
had  opened,  had  previously  heard  nothing  of  Jesus  being 
the  Son  of  God  ;  but  having  been  the  subject  of  so  great 
a  miracle,  and  iiearing  this  great  truth  from  Jesus  himself, 
he  believed  the  testimony  on  the  evidence  of  the  miracle. 
In  what  sense  he  believed  it,  is  obvious  from  the  account 
which  the  Evangelist  John  has  given  of  him  :  "  He  said, 
Lord,  I  believe,  and  worshipped  him,"  Jolm  ix,  38. 

The  same  inference  was  drawn  from  the  same  premises, 
and  in  the  same  manner,  by  the  men  who  witnessed  an- 
other of  his  miracles.  "  When  they  (Jesus  artd  Peter) 
were  come  into  the  ship,  the  wind  ceased.  Then  they 
that  were  in  the  ship  came  and  worshipped  him,  saying, 
Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,"  Matt,  xiv,  32,  33. 

When  Jesus  said  to  Mary,  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  "  I  am 
the  resurrection  and  the  life:  (I  raise  the  dead  and  sup- 
port the  living  :)  believest  thou  this  ?"  Mary  answered, 
"Yea,  Lord,  I  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,"  John  xi,  25-27.  Thus,  if  others  inferred  that  he 
is  the  Son  of  God  from  the  manifestation  of  his  omnipo- 
tence, Mary  inferred  his  omnipotence  from  his  being  the 
Son  of  God. 

The  numberless  miracles  which  Jesus  wrought  arc  re- 
corded in  confirmation  of  this  truth.  "And  many  other 
signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which 
are  not  written  in  this  book.  But  these  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,'" 
John  XX,  30,  31. 

From  all  these  passages  it  is  obvioii8  in  what  sense  ihis 
phrase  was  understood  in  the  days  of  our  Lord's  ministry. 
No  one  thought  of  his  i)eing  the  Son  of  God,  until  it  was 
revealed.  When  his  disciples  witnessed  his  divine  per- 
fections of  omniscience  or  omnipotence,  they  accepted 
them  as  proofs  of  his  divinity,  and  consfM|U(M)tly  believed 
and  acknowledged  him  to  i)e  the  Son  of  God.  And  when 
they  acknowledged  hi  in  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  as  a  proof 
that  in  so  doing  they  acknowledged  his  divinity,  they 
M'orship|)('d  him. 

If  farliier  i)roof  that  tliis  phrase  was  then  used  to  sig- 
nify proper  divinity  be  necessary,  we  have  it  from  the 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.       141 

adversaries  of  Jesus,  who  plainly  show  that  in  this  sense 
it  was  generally  understood. 

1.  "  When  the  tempter  came  to  Jesus,  he  said,  If  thou 
be  the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made 
bread,"  Matt,  iv,  3.  He  expected  it  should  be  proved  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  by  the  manifestation  of  divine 
perfections.  And  he  received  such  evidence  of  the  know, 
ledge  of  Jesus,  who  called  him  by  his  name,  and  of  the 
power  of  Jesus  by  whom  he  was  perfectly  discomfited, 
that  the  demons  were  forced  to  cry  out,  saying,  "  Thou 
art  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  Luke  iv,  41. 

2.  The  Jews  uniformly  sliow  that  this  was  the  idea 
which  the  phrase  in  question  conveyed  to  them.  When, 
on  one  occasion,  they  persecuted  Jesus,  and  sought  to  slay 
him  because  he  had  healed  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day,  he 
"  answered  them,  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work. 
Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because 
he  had  not  only  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said,  also,  that 
God  was  his  uhov,  proper  Father,  making  himself  equal 
with  God,"  John  v,  17,  18.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
observe,  (1.)  that,  as  Father  and  Son  are  correlative  terms, 
by  calling  God  his  Father,  in  connection  with  the  asser- 
tion that  his  works  were  such  as  the  works  of  the  Father, 
he  led  the  Jews  to  suppose  that  he  meant  to  call  God 
idiov  naTEpa,  his  proper  Father,  and  thereby  made  himself 
equal  with  God  :  or  (2,)  that  our  Lord  did  not  treat  them 
as  if  they  misunderstood  him,  but  went  on  to  confirm  the 
statement  which  he  had  already  given. 

At  another  time  they  said  unto  him,  "Thou  blasphe- 
mest,"  and  were  about  to  stone  him,  "  because  he  said,  I 
am  the  Son  of  God,"  John  x,  32,  36.  They  construed 
this  expression  into  blasphemy)  "because  (said  they)  that 
thou  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God,"  John  x,  33.  At  a 
subsequent  time,  the  sanhedrim  were  united  in  the  same 
opinion.  When  Jesus  had  confessed  himself  to  be  "the 
Son  of  God,"  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes,  saying,  "  He 
hath  spoken  blasphemy  :"  and  the  scribes  and  elders  said, 
"  He  is  gtlilty  of  death,"  Matt,  xxvi,  63-06.  And  lastly, 
when  he  was  ci'ucified  they  expected  that  if  he  was  the 
Son  of  God  he  was  omnipotent.  Hence  they  said,  "  If 
thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  from  the  cross," 
Matt,  xxvii,  40. 


142       ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRI^TITY. 

Thus  we  find  that  the  divine  perfections  were  mani- 
fested in  Jesus  Christ,  as  demonstrations  of  his  being  a 
divine  person.  Mr.  G.  and  his  Socinian  brethren  affect 
to  overlook  tliis  kind  of  evidence,  and  perpetually  call  for 
clear  and  positive  declarations  of  the  divinity  of  our 
Lord  from  his  own  mouth.  By  this  manoeuvre  a  thousand 
witnesses  are  silenced  in  the  many  divine  miracles 
which  he  daily  wrought  among  the  people,  and  by  which 
he  "shovveth  forth  his  glory."  Yet  tiie  manifestation  of 
his  divine  perfections  was  the  most  proper  mean  of  esta- 
blishing the  belief  of  his  deity.  Without  such  evidence, 
the  assertion  of  Jesus  Christ  must  have  passed  for  nothing. 
An  imposter  may  give  out,  like  Simon  Magus,  that  he  is 
"  the  great  power  of  God  ;"  but  he  only  who  manifests  tho 
divine  perfections,  and  does  "the  works  of  God,"  gives 
satisfactory  proof  of  his  divinity.  When  "the  Jews 
sought  to  kill "  our  Lord,  "  because — he  said  that  God 
was  his  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God — Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself;  but  what  he 
seeth  the  Father  do  ;  for  what  things  soever  he  doth,  these 
also  doth  the  Son  likewise.  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself, 
my  witness  is  not  true.  There  is  another  that  beareth 
witness  of  me,  and  I  know  that  the  witness  wiiich  he  wit- 
iiesseth  of  me  is  true.  Ye  sent  unto  John,  and  he  bear 
witness  unto  the  truth.  But  I  have  greater  witness  than 
that  of  John,  for  the  works  w  Inch  the  Father  liath  given 
me  to  finish,  the  same  works  that  I  do  bear  witness  of  me. 
And  the  Father  himself,  which  hath  sent  me,  hath  borne 
witness  of  me,"  John  v,  18,  10,  31-33,  36,37. 

That  we  have  not  reasoned  falsely  on  these  premises, 
we  have  a  decisive  proof  in  the  argument  which  Jesus 
Christ  himself  used.  "Say  ye  of  him,  whom  tiie  Father 
hath  sanctified,  and  sent  into  the  world.  Thou  l)lasphe- 
niest ;  because  I  said,  I  am  tiie  Son  of  CJod  ?  If  I  do  not 
tlie  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  noL  But  if  I  do, 
though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works  ;  that  ye  may 
know,  and  believe,  that  the  Father  is  in  me.  and  I  in  liim," 
John  X.  3(5-38.  Here  we  see  that  in  our  Lord's  opinion, 
his  miraculous  works  evinced  his  union  with  the  godiiead, 
and  his  union  with  the  godhead  was  what  he  alluded  to  in 
denominating  himself  the  Son  of  God. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.       143 

The  multiplied  evidences  of  our  Lord's  divinify,  de- 
4'ived  from  the  miracles  which,  with  divine  power,  he 
wrought  during  the  years  of  his  public  ministry,  are  sup- 
jjosed  by  the  Socinians  to  be  unsatisfactory,  because  the 
disci|)les  themselves  were  not  thereby  immovably  fixed  in 
the  belief  of  that  doctrine.  "  When  he  was  seized  by 
men,"  says  our  opponent,  "  they  all  forsook  him  and  fled  ; 
a  demonstration  as  decisive  as  can  possibly  be  given  of  the 
■opinion  they  entertained  of  his  person."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  9.) 
This  argument  is  the  most  futile  that  one  could  wish  an 
adversary  to  advance.  We  know  that  the  faith  of  the 
disciples,  till  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  exceed, 
ingly  weak  and  unsteady.  Their  cowardice  on  this  occa- 
sion  was  not  "  a  decisive  demonstration"  of  their  faith, 
but  of  their  unbelief. 

Whatever  they  had  believed  concerning  him,  whether, 
that  he  was  equal  with  God,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
or  that  he  was  the  Messiah, — they  now  doubted.  Hence, 
when,  after  a  long  conversation  with  him,  they  said, 
'■■  Now  we  are  sure  that  thou  knovvest  all  things,  and 
needest  not  that  any  man  should  ask  thee  :  by  this  we  be- 
lieve that  thou  camest  forth  from  God :  Jesus  answered 
them.  Do  ye  now  believe  ?  Behold  the  hour  cometh,  that 
ye  shall  be  scattered,  every  man  to  his  own,  and  shall 
leave  me  alone,"  John  xvi,  30-32.  But  notwithstanding 
this  tlieir  unbelief,  and  their  desertion  of  their  Master, 
they  had  previously  '•  trusted  that  it  had  been  he  which 
should  have  redeemed  Israel." 

When  he  "  vvho  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David,  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead,"  Rom.  i,  3,  4,  then  their  faith  be- 
came  victorious  :  they  openly  acknowledged  his  divinity, 
and  no  more  deserted  him  or  his  cause. 

Thomas,  though  the  most  obstinate  in  his  unbelief, 
was  the  first  to  make  confession  of  his  subsequent  faith. 
The  demonstration  of  our  Lord's  divinity  was  now  com- 
plete, an^  constrained  him  to  exclaim,  "  My  Lord  and 
my  God." 

But  especially  when  they  had  received  that  Spirit  whom 
Jesus  had  promised  to  them,  who  "  spake  not  of  himself, 
but  glorified"  the  Saviour  ;  who  should  "  guide  them  into 


144       ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRIME    OF   THE    TRINITY. 

all  truth  ;"  who  should   "  take  of  the   things"   of  Christ, 
and  "show  them  unto   thcui;"  and   who  should  demon- 
strate to  them  that  "  all  the  Father  hath"  is  his  ;  that  the 
Father  is  in  the  Son,  and  the  Son  in  the  Father :    then 
thov  did  not,  as  Mr.  G.  has  rashly  asserted,  "  invariably 
style  him  a  man,"  (vol.  ii,  p.  9.)  but  unanimously  declared 
his  divinity.     Matthew  announced  him  to  be  "  God  with 
us,"  Matt,  i,  28.     Peter  denominated  him  "Lord  of  all," 
Acts  X,  36.     Paul   asserted,   to  the  Romans,  that  he  "  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  for  evermore,"    Rom.  ix,  5 ;  to  the 
Corinthians,  that  "  to  us  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  are  all   things,"  1  Cor.  viii,  6;  and  that  "God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,"  2  Cor.  v, 
19  ;   to  the  Ephesians,  that  he  is  "  the  fulness  of  Him  that 
iilleth  all  in  all,"  that  he  is   "  Christ   and   God,"  Eph.  i, 
23  ;   V,  5  ;  to  the  Philippians,  that  "  he  was  iu  the  form  of 
God,  and  thought  it   not  robbery  lo  be  equal   with  God," 
Phil,  ii,  6  ;  to  the  Colossians,  that  "  it  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,"  Col.  i.  19  ;  that  "  in 
him  dwoUeth  all  the  fulness  of  the  godhead  bodily,"  Col. 
ii,  9;   that   "  by   him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in 
heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether 
tliev  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers  : 
all  things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him,  and  (that)  he 
is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist."   Col.  i, 
16,  17  ;   to  Timothy,  that  "  (iod  was  manifest  in  the  flesh," 
1  Tim.  iii,  16  ;    to  Titus,   that   "the  great  God   and  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  jj;ave  himself  for  us,"  Tit.  ii.  13;   to 
the  Heltrews  lliat  "by  him  (Jod  made  the  worlds,"  that  he 
is  "  upholding  all  tiiiiics  by  the  word  of  his  power."   Heb. 
i,  2,  3;   that   "unto  the  Son  he  (the 'Father)  saith.  Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,"    Heb.  i,  8 ;   and  that 
ovToc,  ''he  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses, 
inasmuch  as  he  who  hath  builded    the   house   hath  more 
honour  than   the  hous»\     For  every  house  is  builded   viro 
Tivor,  by  some  one,  but  he  that  built  all  things  is  God,"  Heb. 
iii,  3,  4.     John  asserted  that  he  "  was  (Joil,"  and  that  "all 
things  were  made  by  bim,  and  without  him  was  not  any 
thill!.'  m;\(le  that  was  mad<\"  John  i,  1.  3  ;   that  he  "  is  the 
true  God.  and  eternal  life."   1  John  i.  20.     Jude  spake  of 
him  as  "the  only  wise   (tod  our  Saviour;" — "the  only 
Governor   God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  Jude  4,  25. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE  TRINITY.       145 

While  they  thus  unanimously  speak  of  his  godhead,  they 
attribute  to  him  those  infinite  perfections  which  belong  to 
no  being  but  the  Deity.  They  represent  him  as  being  "  be- 
fore  all  things,"  Col.  i,  17  ;  as  having  "  all  power  in  hea- 
ven  and  on  earth,"  Matt,  xxxviii,  28  :  and  therefore  be- 
ing in  heaven  and  on  earth :  as  having  in  him  "  all  the 
treasures  of  wisdom  and  of  knowledge  :"  and  as  "  able  to 
save  and  to  destroy,"  James  iv,  12.  (See  p.  69.)  His 
godhead,  therefore,  can  be  denied  only  on  principles  which 
separate  between  the  divine  perfections  and  the  divine 
nature.     (See  pp.  70,  71.) 

On  this  ascription  of  divinity  and  divine  perfections  to 
Jesus  Christ,  the  whole  system  of  apostolic  doctrine  is 
founded  :  and  the  latter  so  necessarily  implies  the  former, 
that  all  must  stand  or  fall  together.     For  instance  : 

1.  According  to  the  apostles  we  are  to  behold  "  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Cor.  iv,  6. 
But  how  can  God  be  seen  in  him,  if  God  be  not  in  him? 
or  how  can  Jesus  Christ  display  to  us  the  glory  of  the 
divine  perfections,  unless  he  possess  them  ? 

2.  The  apostles  refer  us  to  him  for  pardon,  assuring 
us  that  he  is  "  exalted  a  prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give 
forgiveness  of  sins,"  Acts  v,  31.  Who  can  forgive  sins 
but  God  only  ?  How  then  can  Jesus  forgive  sins  if  he 
be  not  God  ?  Must  not  he  who  dispenses  pardons  be 
supreme  ?  Must  not  God  be  in  Christ,  to  reconcile  the 
world  to  himself? 

3.  The  apostles  attribute  to  him  the  new  creation.  Of 
this  new  creation  man  is  the  principal  subject.  He  is 
created  "  after  God,  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness," 
Eph.  iv,  24.  But  are  not  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness 
equal  to  what  were  exerted  in  making  man  in  the  divine 
image,  necessary  to  this  purpose  ?  Who  but  God  can 
reproduce  what  once  was  the  perfection  of  the  work  of  God  ? 

4.  The  apostles  inform  us  that  "  whoever  shall  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved,"  Rom.  x,  13  ;  and 
address  themselves  to  the  Christian  world  as  to  "  those 
that  in  et^ry  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord,"  1  Cor.  i,  2.  But  to  what  purpose  is  he  in- 
voked, unless  he  be  omnipresent,  and  can  in  every  place 
hear  and  answer, — omniscient,  and  can  discern  all  our 
wants, — omnipotent,  and  therefore  able  to  remove  or  pre- 

13 


146       ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRITVITT. 

vent  all  the  evils  which  we  deprecate,  and  to  bestow  all 
the  divine  blessings  which  we  supplicate  ? 

5.  The  apostles  teach  us  to  expect  that  he  "  shall 
change  our  vile  bodies,  and  fashion  them  like  unto  his 
own  glorious  body."  How  can  he  effect  this,  with  power 
less  than  that  which  at  first  "  created  man  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  earth?"  or  unless  he  were  "  able  to  subdue 
even  all  things  to  himself,"  Phil,  iii,  21. 

6.  The  apostles  assert  that  it  is  he  "  who  shall  judge 
both  the  quick  and  the  dead,"  2  Tim.  iv,  1.  But  how 
can  he  judge  mankind,  unless  he  have  that  power  which 
God  exclusively  asserts,  Jer.  xvii,  10,  the  power- to  search 
the  human  heart :  unless  he  be  "  he  that  searcheth  the 
heart  and  trieth  the  reins  of  the  children  of  men,  to  give 
unto  every  one  as  his  work  shall  be  ?"  How  can  he 
judge  between  God  and  man,  unless  he  know — what  none 
but  Cod  can  know — the  infinite  perfections  of  the  divine 
nature?  Without  this,  how  can  he  know  what  is  due  to 
those  perfections,  or  what  is  due  from  them  ? 

Thus  is  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  everywhere  inter- 
woven with  the  apostolic  system  of  doctrine. 

But  Mr.  G.  confidently  affirms  that  St.  John,  who 
"  was  left  to  censure  whatever  opinions  arose,  contrary  to 
those  taught  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles,"  (vol.  ii,  p.  10.) 
has  censured  none  but  those  of  the  Gnostics,  who  denied 
the  proper  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  question  of 
the  true  origin  and  character  of  the  Ebionites,  at  whose 
errors,  also,  both  the  gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
John  are  generally  supposed  to  have  been  levelled,  we 
leave  for  the  ecclesiastical  historians  to  determine.  On 
this  subject  the  reader  will  do  well  to  consult  Hishop 
Horsley's  letters  to  Dr.  Priestley.  Whatever  the  Ebi- 
onites  were,  St.  John's  gospel  begins  with  the  eternity 
and  divinity  of  the  Word  :  which  he  assert.^  in  such  plain 
terms  that  Mr.  G.  is  forced  to  concede,  pro  tcmporr,  that 
"the  Word  was  no  other  than  (lod  liiiiisclf."  (Vol.  i,  p. 
197.)  As  the  pre-cwistence  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ 
are  thus  asserted  in  (lie  i)eginning  of  tliat  hook,  the  proofs 
of  those  (lortrines  make  up  the  substance  of  it.  The 
evauiielist  having  thus  asserted  that  the  eternal  and  divine 
"  Word  was  made  (lesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,"  he  sub- 
joins, "  And  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.       147 

begotten  of  the  Father,"  John  i,  14.  He  then  proceeds 
to  show  how  his  glory  was  seen,  in  all  the  testimonies 
concerning  him,  and  in  all  his  sayings  and  miracles,  by 
which  his  divine  nature  or  his  divine  perfections  were 
manifested.  All  these,  he  professes,  he  wrote  "  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God," 
John  XX,  31.  This  declaration  of  his  purpose  is  imme- 
diately connected  with  the  confession  of  faith  which 
Thomas  made,  (My  Lord  and  my  God,)  our  Lord's  ap- 
probation  of  it,  and  his  benediction  on  those  who  should 
believe,  like  him,  on  the  testimony  of  his  apostles.  It  is 
true,  a  Socinian  can  see  no  divinity  implied  in  that  phrase, 
"  the  Son  of  God."  When  his  prejudice  is  removed  he 
will  see  that  St.  John,  in  his  first  epistle,  has  not  censured 
the  Gnostics  only,  who  denied  our  Lord's  humanity,  but 
those  also  who  denied  his  Messiahship  and  his  divinity.  On 
the  one  hand  he  has  indeed  said,  "  Every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  not 
of  God,  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist,  whereof  you 
have  heard,  that  it  should  come,"  1  John  iv,  3.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  has  also  said,  "  Now  are  there  many 
antichrists.  They  went  out  from  us,  that  they  might  be 
made  manifest  that  they  were  not  all  of  us.  Who  is  a 
liar  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  ?  he  is 
antichrist  that  denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son,"  1  John  ii, 
18-22.  "  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him  and  he  in  God,"  1  John  iv, 
15.  "  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that 
believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,"  1  John  v,  5. 
"These  things  have  I  written  unto  you,  (not  merely  to 
show  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  real  man,  but)  that  ye  may 
believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,"  1  John  v,  13. 
And  that  this  design  might  not  be  misinterpreted,  he 
concludes  that  epistle  with  these  words,  in  which  he  de- 
clares the  true  deity  of  the  Son  of  God  :  "  We  know 
that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  un- 
derstanding that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true :  and  we 
are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life,"  1  John  v,  20. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  never  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  de- 
nominated either  a  person,  or  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  Our 
Lord,  however,  in  speaking  of  him,  often  gave  him  the 


148       ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRIiXE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

strongest  distinct  and  personal  characters ;  and  to  his 
authority,  on  this  subject,  we  have  made  our  appeal. 
(See  pp.  117,  118.)  He  also  denominated  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit the  Spirit  of  God,  Matt,  xii,  28,  and  by  that  appella- 
tion indicated  his  proper  divinity.  Now  this  is  precisely 
the  doctrine  on  which  we  insist. 

On  the  whole :  After  Thomas  had  addressed  Jesus 
Christ  as  his  Lord  and  his  God,  and  had  been  commended 
in  the  presence  of  his  brethren  for  this  confession  of  his 
faith,  our  Lord  gave  commandment  to  his  disciples  to 
"  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Matt, 
xxviii,  19.  This  was  the  summit  of  what  our  Lord  taught 
to  his  disciples,  and  this  institution  was  a  summary  of  the 
instruction  which  he  had  previously  given  to  them.  He 
did  not  say  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
are  three  ;  but  he  did  not  make  it  impiety  for  us  so  to  count 
them.  It  was  not  necessary  to  teach  that  three  are  three. 
He  did  not  say  these  three  are  one  :  or  that  the  Father, 
the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God ;  but  he  appointed 
that,  by  a  religious  rite,  the  faithful  shall  be  devoted  to 
them,  though  he  had  also  taught  that  "  the  Lord  our  God 
is  one  Lord,  and  him  only  we  should  serve." 

According  to  this  institution,  by  which  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  held  forth  as  the  one  object 
of  the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  Christian  church,  the 
apostles  initiated  every  believer  into  this  doctrine.  And 
this  doctrine,  as  well  as  the  baptismal  vow  which  was 
founded  on  it,  they  perpetuated  by  a  form  of  benediction 
which  is  a  counterpart  of  the  form  of  baptism  :  "  The 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  ihe  love  of  God,  and 
the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all." 

In  this  simple  form  this  great  subject  was  left  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles.  It  would  be  arrogance  to  suppose  that 
any  addition  which  has  been  made  to  it  is  an  improvement. 
The  religious  controversies  of  some  of  the  first  ages  intro- 
duced a  phraseology  to  wliich  the  sacrod  writers,  we  find, 
were  perfect  strangers.  Such  an  unscriptural  pliraseology 
a  Bible  Christian  might  easily  be  persuaded  to  relinquish, 
if  the  sacrifice  were  to  be  made  in  favour  of  tiie  truth  as  it 
is  in  Jesus.  But  the  Socinians  prohibit  a  recantation  of 
the  former^  by  identifying  it  with  the  latter  ;  and  almost 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.       149 

vindicate  the  propriety  of  the  phraseology,  by  using  the 
same  weapons  against  both.  The  cause  of  truth  would 
not  have  stood  on  a  firmer  basis,  if  the  technical  terms  of 
the  schools  had  turned  out  to  be  those  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  To  the  word  trinity,  it  would  then  be  objected 
that  it  does  not  convey  the  idea  of  three  persons.  To  the 
phrase  trinity  in  unity,  that  it  may  express  a  threefold 
distinction  in  one  being,  very  different  from  the  personal 
distinction  whichTrinitarians  maintain.  Had  the  apostles 
spoken  of  three  persons  in  one  God,  it  would  have  been 
represented  that  these  words,  literally  understood,  sug- 
gest  a  contradiction  ;  that  three  persons  are  three  beings ; 
that  three  beings  cannot  subsist  in  one  being  ;  and  that 
therefore  the  language  of  the  writer  must  be  understood  as 
"  highly  figurative."  If  the  sacred  writers  had  apphed 
to  Jesus  Christ  the  scholastic  appellation  "  God  the  Son," 
it  would  have  been  very  shrewdly  observed  that  the  word 
Son  indicates  a  subordinate  relation,  and  that  therefore 
the  phrase  is  a  denial,  rather  than  an  assertion  of  his 
supreme  godhead.  And  lastly.  Had  the  phrase  God  the 
Holy  Ghost  been  used  in  Scripture,  to  any  argument 
founded  upon  it,  it  could  easily  have  been  answered, 
either,  first,  that  this  is  a  rhetorical  figure,  by  which  only 
the  abstract  power,  energy,  or  operation  of  God  is  meant : 
in  proof  of  which  the  following  passage  would  be  cited, 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of 
the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  :"  or,  second,  that  by 
this  periphrasis  God  simply  is  meant ;  for  "  God  is  a  Spi- 
rit," and  he  is  a  Holy  Spirit.  «  By  God  the  Holy  Ghost, 
therefore,  is  meant,  God  who  is  a  Holy  Spirit."  At  this 
rate  no  terms  of  human  invention  will  serve  to  silence  a 
thorough  Unitarian.  But  Mr.  G.  knows  that,  if  the 
plain,  direct,  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers 
be  allowed  to  be  their  true  meaning,  the  doctrine  of  the 
preceding  pages  will  want  no  scholastic  terms  for  its 
support. 

Having  shown  that  the  language  of  sacred  Scripture  is 
such  as  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  origin  of  the  Trini- 
tarian doctrines,  it  is  not  very  necessary  to  seek  their 
origin  in  the  volumes  of  ecclesiastical  history.  After  this, 
to  enter  with  the  Socinians  into  a  discussion  of  the  opi- 
nions of  the  early  Christians  cannot  justly  be  demanded ; 
13* 


150       ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY- 

and,  if  not  done  with  caution,  would  be  to  betray  the  cause 
of  truth,  by  removing   it  from  its  proper  foundation.     In 
this  discussion  the  question  is,  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Old  and  of  the  New  Testament  ?     The  sacred  writers  lie 
open  to  all ;  whereas  the  Christian  fathers  are  known  to 
comparatively  few.     Hence  an  appeal  to  the  fonnei  may 
be  generally  considered  in  the  light  of  an  argument  whicli 
carries  conviction  to  every  honest  mind ;  but  an  appeal 
to  the  latter  is,  in  most  cases,  little  better  than  a  naked 
assertion,  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  which,  the  reader  must 
depend  on  the  judgment  and  integrity  of  the  writer.    The 
former  are  incomparably  the  best  authorities.     Their  cre- 
dit is  justly  established  on  the  basis  of  divine  inspiration; 
while  that  of  the  latter  is  often  at  the  best  but  dubious. 
The  first  age  of  the   Christian  church  produced  but  few 
writers  whose  works  have  descended  with  unquestionable 
proof  of  their  genuineness ;  and  of  those  few  none  have 
written  professedly  on  the  subjects  now  under  discussion. 
The  consequence  is,  that  little  satisfaction  is  to  be  derived 
from  their  testimony  ;  and    every  man   feels  himself  at 
liberty  to  accommodate  their  language  to  his  own  precon- 
ceived  opinion.     This   fact    is    confirmed  by   Mr.   G.'s 
lectures,   in  which,  to  prove  that    the  mere  humanity  of 
Jesus  Christ  was  maintained  by  them,   he  has  been  able 
only  to  cull  a  few  passages  such   as  the  writings  of  any 
modern  Trinitarian  wouhl  plentifully  afford  to  prove  that 
they  believed  his  proper  humanity  :  in  which  he  has  cited 
certain  expressions  indicative  of  the  distinction  and  rela- 
tion between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  such  its  Athanasius 
himself  would  not  have  rejected  :*  Uit   in  which  he  has 
exhibited  from  thosn  fathers  nothing  which  has  the  most 
distant   appearance  of  a  denial  of  supreme  divinity  to 
Jesus  Christ.     The  few  passages  of  tliose  early  writers, 
which  give  countenance  to  a  doctrine  on  wiiich  they  were 
not  professedly  writing,  eitlier  are  torn   in  j)ieces  on  the 
rack  of  criticism,  or,  l)ecause  otiier  passages  of  a  similar 
kind  have  been  interpolated,  arc  cancelled  as  interpola- 
tions.    If  the    Scriptures  themselves  do  not  afford  satis 
factory  evidence  of  the  doctrines  which  they  contain,  the 

♦  The  answers  already  given  to  his  ciintions  from  Scrniture  on 
the  humanity  of  Christ  are  equally  applicable  to  those  from  the 
ClirisiioA  falliers. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.      151 

J* 

case  is  therefore  desperate.  When  we  descend  to  later 
ages,  we  meet  with  writers  enow  on  these  subjects  ;  but 
their  testimony  is  not  admitted  because  they  were  not  the 
immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles.  But  if  their  testi- 
mony were  admitted,  and  tlieir  scholastic  terms  were 
canonized,  the  men  who  can  set  aside  the  testimony  of  the 
apostles,  and  make  the  more  appropriate  terms  of  Scrip, 
ture  speak  their  own  language,  can,  with  equal  ease,  enlist 
the  metaphysical  fathers  of  the  fourth  century  under  the 
banner  of  Socinus,  and  convert  the  Nicene  and  even  the 
Athanasian  creed  into  evidence  in  favour  of  their  cause, 
But  if  we,  on  the  other  hand,  could  defend  the  doctrines 
of  the  trinity  by  lucid  and  appropriate  quotations  drawn 
from  the  writings  of  all  the  Christian  fathers  from  Cle- 
ment to  Athanasius,  unless  we  could  prove  them  from 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  all  our  authors  must  rank  in  the 
list  of  heretics. 

These  reasons  for  not  resting  the  question  on  any  but 
scriptural  authority  may  suffice.  It  is  not  designed,  how- 
ever, to  insinuate  that  the  primitive  church  was  either 
Unitarian  or  neutral.  While  we  distinguish  between  the 
words  of  human  wisdom  and  the  truth  of  God,  we  may 
have  sufficient  proof  that  the  primitive  church  was  what 
we  call  Trinitarian. 

Clemens,  bishop  of  Rome,  was  an  eminent  Christian 
writer  of  the  first  century,  and  one  who  had  conversed 
with  the  apostles.  Mr.  G.  has  quoted  from  him  the  prin- 
cipal passages,  among  which  are  the  following  : — 1.  One 
in  which  he  calls  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  :  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Thou  art  my  Son,  tliis  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  47.)  2.  Another,  in  which,  speaking  of  Ja- 
cob, he  says,  "  From  him  (sprang)  the  Lord  Jesus 
according  to  the  flesh  :"  (vol.  ii,  p.  48  :)  words  which, 
without  a  Socinian  comment,  imply  that  in  another  respect 
Jesus  Christ  did  not  spring  from  Jacob.  This  scriptural 
phrase  (according  to  tlie  flesh)  indicates  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  Qjerely  human  :  for,  (1.)  Where  is  it  applied  in 
a  similar  manner  to  any  mere  man  ?  (2.)  In  the  above 
passage  Clemens  speaks  of  the  priests  and  Levites  as 
springing  from  Jacob  ;  but  does  not  add,  as  in  the  case  of 
our  Lord,  "  according  to  the  flesh."  (3.)  St.  Paul  has 
pointed  out  the  true  sense  of  this  phrase  in  that  antithesis 


152       ORIGIN    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OP    THE    TRINITT. 

in  which  he  says,  "  Jesus  Christ  was  made  of  the  seed  of 
David,  according  to  the  flesh  ;  but  the  Son  of  God,  ac- 
cording to  the  Spirit  of  hohness,"  Rom.  i,  3,  4.  3.  A 
third,  in  which,  speaking  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  says,  "  He 
came  not  in  the  pomp  of  pride  and  arrogance,  aUhough 
he  had  it  in  his  power,  but  in  humihty."  '<  More  ancient 
copies,  (those  which  Jerome  used,)  instead  of  Kanrep  dwa/i. 
£voc,  '  although  he  had  it  in  his  power,'  had  Kainep  navra 
dvvafievoc,  '  although  he  had  all  things  in  his  power.'  The 
expressions  clearly  imply  that,  ere  he  came,  he  had  the 
power  to  choose,  and  that  all  things  were  in  his  power  :" 
{Horsley's  Letters,  p.  131 :)  i.  e.,  both  his  pre-existence 
and  his  omnipotence. 

Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  was  a  disciple  and  familar 
friend  of  the  apostles.  His  short  epistles  are  replete  with 
testimonies  of  the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  attempt  a  vindica- 
tion of  their  genuineness  against  the  cavils  of  Socinians. 
The  reader  may  consult,  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Horsley's 
Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley.  If  those  epistles  are  not  genu- 
ine, they  cannot  be  produced  against  us.  If  they  are 
genuine,  they  are  evidence  in  our  favour.  The  following 
passages  may  suffice  to  illustrate  their  general  tenor  : — 
1.  On  the  pre-existence  of  Christ :  "Who  was  with  the 
Father  before  all  ages,  and  appeared  at  the  end  of  the 
world."  {Ad.  Mag.  sec.  5.)  2.  On  the  twofold  nature  of 
Christ :  "  Of  the  race  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh,  but 
the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  will  and  power  of  God." 
{Ad.  Smyr.  sec.  5.)  3.  Of  the  divinity  of  Christ :  "  I  glo- 
rify God,  even  Jesus  Christ."  {Ad.  Smyr.  sec.  1.)  4.  Of 
the  worship  of  Christ :  "  Pray  to  Christ  for  me,  that  by 
the  beasts  I  may  be  found  a  sacrifice  to  God."  {Ad.  Rom. 
sec.  4.)  5.  Of  the  trinity  :  "  Be  ye  strengthened  in  the 
concord  of  God,  enjoying  his  inseparable  Spirit,  which  is 
Jesus  Christ."  {Ad  Mag.  sec.  13.) 

Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  was  a  disciple  of  St.  John 
In  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  speaking  of  Jesus  Christ, 
he  says,  "  Whom  every  living  creature  shall  worship." 

iSec.  2.)  The  following  passage,  in  which  he  prays  to 
esus  Christ,  and  calls  him  "  the  Son  of  (iod,"  (a  term 
which,  as  we  have  shown,  indicated  a  divine  person,)  is 
quoted  by  Mr.   G.  :   "  The  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ, 


ORIGIX    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    TRINITY.     153 

build  you  up  in  faith,"  dec.  {Epist.  to  Phil.  sec.  12.) — 
"  When  he  Avas  at  the  stake,  he  finished  his  prayer  with 
these  words : — '  For  this,  and  for  all  other  things,  I 
praise  thee,  I  bless  thee,  I  glorify  thee,  by  the  eternal  and 
heavenly  high  priest,  Jesus  Christ,  thy  beloved  Son  ;  with 
whom,  to  thee,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  glory  both  now 
and  to  all  succeeding  ages.  Amen."  (Martyr,  of  Poly- 
carp,  sec.  14.) 

Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp. 
He  says,  "We  show  that  the  Word,  existing  in  the  be- 
ginning with  God,  united  himself  to  the  work  of  his  own 
hands,  when  he  became  a  man  capable  of  suffering." 
(Lib.  iii,  cap.  20.)  Again  :  "To  this  purpose  our  Lord 
came  to  us,  not  so  as  he  might  have  come,  but  so  as  we 
might  be  able  to  behold  him ;  for  he  might  have  come 
to  us  in  his  own  unspeakable  glory,  but  we  should  not  have 
been  able  to  endure  the  magnitude  of  his  glory."  (Adv. 
Hceret.  lib.  iv,  cap.  74.)  "  The  Scripture  (says  he) 
is  full  of  the  Son  of  God's  appearing,  sometimes  to  talk 
and  eat  with  Abraham  ;  at  another  time  to  seek  Adam  ; 
at  another  time  to  bring  down  judgment  upon  Sodom  ; 
then  again  to  direct  Jacob  in  the  way;  and  again  to  con- 
verse with  Moses  out  of  the  bush."  (Lib.  iv,  cap.  23.) 
"  The  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  manifests  and  reveals 
himself  to  all,  to  whom  he  is  at  all  revealed,  by  his  Word, 
who  is  his  Son.  For  they  know  the  Father,  to  whomso- 
ever the  Son  will  reveal  him.  Now  the  Son,  co-existing 
always  with  the  Father,  reveals  the  Father  of  old,  even 
always  from  the  beginning,  to  angels  and  archangels,  and 
powers  and  dominions,  and  to  men."  (Lib.  ii,  cap.  55.) 
He  adds,  "  Every  knee  should  bow  to  Christ  Jesus,  our 
Lord,  and  God,  and  Saviour,  and  King,  according  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  invisible  Father."  (Lib.  i,  cap.  2.) 
"  The  Father,  by  his  own  Word  and  Spirit,  makes, 
governs,  and  gives  being  to  all  things."  (Lib.  i,  cap.  22, 
sec.  1.)  "  For  his  Word  and  his  Wisdom,  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  always  with  him  ;  by  whom  and  with 
whom  he  made  all  things  freely,  and  of  his  own  accord, 
to  whom  he  also  spake  in  these  words.  Let  us  make  man 
in  our  image  and  likeness."     (Lib.  i,  cap.  37.) 

Justin  Martyr,  a  Christian  apologist,  wrote  about  the 
year  140.     He  says,  "  But  the  Son  of  the  Father,  even  he 


154       ORIGIN    OP   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

who  alone  is  properly  called  his  Son,  the  Word  which  was 
with  him  before  the  creation,  because  by  him  he  in  the  be- 
ginning made  and  disposed  all  things,"  &c.  (Apol.)  And 
again  :  "  But  this  Being,  who  was  really  begotten  of  the 
Father,  and  proceeded  from  him,  did,  before  ail  creatures 
were  made,  exist  with  the  Father,  and  the  Father  con- 
versed with  him."  (Dial,  cum  Tryph.)  Once  more : — 
*'  God,  and  his  onlj  begotten  Son,  together  with  the  Spirit, 
we  worship  and  adore."     (Apol.) 

Athenagoras  was  another  Christian  apologist  who  wrote 
in  the  second  century.  Speaking  of  the  Son,  he  says, 
"  He  is  to  the  Father  as  the  first  offspring ;  not  as  some- 
thing made.  For  God,  being  an  eternal  intelligence,  him- 
self from  the  beginning  had  the  Logos  in  himself,  being 
•eternally  rational."  (Horsley^s  Letters,  p.  59.) 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  was  also  a  writer  of  the 
second  century,  in  defence  of  Christianity.  Addressing 
himself  to  Autolycus,  he  says,  "  It  was  to  no  other  that 
he  said,  '  Let  us  make,'  than  to  his  own  Word,  and  to 
his  own  Wisdom."  Again  :  "  The  three  days  which 
preceded  the  creation  of  the  luminaries,  were  types  of  the 
trinity,  rpiaioc  ;  of  God,  and  of  his  Word,  and  of  his  Wis- 
dom." (Ad  Autolyc.  p.  114.)  The  passage  just  quoted 
from  Irenaeus shows  that, by  "his  Word  and  his  Wisdom," 
the  writers  of  this  age  meant  "  the  Son,  and  the  Holv 
Spirit." 

Clemens  of  Alexandria,  an  eminent  writer  of  the  se- 
cond century,  says,  "  The  Son  of  God  is  always  every, 
where,  and  contained  nowhere  :  all  mind,  all  light,  all 
eye  of  his  Fatlier,  beholding  all  things,  hearing  all  things, 
knowing  all  things."  And  again :"  Ignorance  cannot 
affect  God,  him  that  was  the  Father's  Counsellor  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  (Stom.  lib.  vii,  cap.  2.) 

Tortullian  is  (he  lust  writer  of  this  century  to  whom  we 
appeal.  Tlie  following  |)assage  is  translated  from  his 
treatise,  de  Pnrscriptionc,  by  Dr.  Priestley,  and  arknow- 
Icdfjed  by  him  to  contain  the  catholic  faith.  The  rule  of 
faith.  "  bv  wliich  wo  are  taught  to  believe  that  tliere  is  but 
on«*  <u)(l,  and  this  no  other  than  the  Maker  of  the  world, 
who  produced  every  thing  out  of  nothing,  by  his  own 
Word  then  first  sent  down:  that  that  Word  was  called 
his  Son  ;  that  he  appeared  variously  in  the  name  of  God, 


USE    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  155 

(i,  e.,  being  called  Jehovah,)  to  the  patriarchs  :  that  he 
was  afterward  conveyed,  by  the  Spirit  and  power  of  God, 
the  Father,  into  the  Virgin  Mary  :  that  he  was  made  flesh 
in  her  womb,  and  from  her  appeared  in  the  person  of  Je- 
sus Christ."  {Remarks  on  Mr.  BadcocFs  Review,  p.  18.) 
That  some  should  be  dissatisfied  with  the  terms  trinity, 
economy,  &c.,  which  began  to  be  invented  and  adopted 
in  the  times  of  Tertullian,  as  Mr.  G.,  quoting  that  author, 
has  specified,  (vol.  ii,  p.  76,)  is  not  matter  of  wonder. 
The  frequent  discussion  of  these  subjects  led  to  the  adop- 
tion  of  compendious  terms  and  phrases,  which,  however 
proper,  might  easily  give  offence,  especially  as  Theodotius, 
the  tanner  of  Byzantium,  was  then  preaching  at  Rome  the 
Unitarian  doctrine  of  the  mere  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
(Dr.  Horsleyto  Dr.  Priestley,  Let.  xiv,  sec.  6.)  We  have 
not,  however,  undertaken  to  vindicate  these  scholastic 
terms,  but  the  scriptural  truth,  with  which,  therefore,  they 
are  not  to  be  identified. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Of  the  Scriptural  Use  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

However  the  prying  curiosity  of  speculative  minds  may 
wish  to  extract  from  the  Scriptures  a  theory  of  the  trinity, 
the  sacred  books  will  afford  them  no  satisfactory  instruc- 
tion on  that  mysterious  subject,  abstracted  from  its  prac- 
tical  use.  A  careful  perusal  of  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  may  soon  convince  the  reader  that  those  books 
are  intended  to  humble  the  pride  of  the  human  understand- 
ing, and  to  amend  the  heart.  Let  no  one  therefore  ima- 
gine that  his  views  of  the  subject  are  correct  and  scriptural, 
if  he  do  not  enter  into  the  spirit  and  design  of  the  sacred 
writers,  and  study  the  mysterious  relation  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  light  of  that  practical 
use  with  which  it  is  always  connected,  from  which  it  can 
never,  witHout  detriment,  be  disjoined,  and  for  the  sake  of 
which  it  is  revealed.  The  following  may  serve  to  exem- 
plify the  use  which  the  sacred  writers  make  of  it. 

"  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  belie veth  in  him  should  not  perish, 


156  THE    SCRIPTURAL    USE    OF   THE 

but  have  everlasting  life,"  John  iii,  16.  To  produce  and 
"  prepare  a  body"  for  the  Son,  "  the  Holy  Spirit  came 
upon  the  virgin,  and  the  power  of  the  highest  over- 
shadowed her."  The  Son  obediently  accepted  the 
Father's  commission,  and  said,  "  A  body  hast  thou  pre- 
pared me.  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God  !"  Heb. 
X,  5,  7.  He  "came  forth  from  the  Father  and  came  into 
the  world,"  John  xvi,  28.  Thus,  "  when  the  fulness  of 
the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a 
woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons," 
Gal.  iv,  5,  6. 

The  Father  acknowledged  the  Son,  and  while  "  the 
Holy  Ghost  descended  upon"  the  latter,  "a  voice  came 
from  heaven  which  said.  Thou  art  my  Son,  in  thee  I  am 
well  pleased,"  Luke  iii,  21,  22.  The  attention  of  the 
human  race  was  called  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  when  a 
voice  proceeded  from  the  excellent  glory,  "  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  hear  ye  him,"  Luke  ix,  35.  "  It  pleased  the 
Fatlicr  tliat  in  his  dear  Son  should  all  fulness"  of  the  Spirit 
♦•  dwell,"  Col.  i,  19.  When,  therefore,  the  Word  was  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory 
as  of  the  only  begotten  (Son)  of  the  Fatiier,  full  of  grace 
and  truth,"  John  i,  14.  Anointed  with  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Son  went  forth,  declaring  to  mankind 
tlie  Father.  •'  He,  whom  God  had  sent,  spake  the  words 
of  God ;  for  God  gave  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  to  him," 
John  iii,  34.  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  said  he,  is  upon 
me,  because  he  halh  anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to 
the  poor :  he  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to 
preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of  sight 
to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to 
preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,"  Luke  iv,  18. 
Speaking  the  words  of  the  Father,  and  delivering  the 
Father's  commandments,  the  Son,  Jolm  xii,  40.  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  wrought  divine  miracles,  and  conlirmed  the 
Fatlicr's  word,  by  doing  tlie  works  of  tiie  Father  :  "  that 
the  Father  miglit  be  glt)riliod  in  the  Son."  "  iMy  Fatlier 
work^'th  hitlierto,  (said  he,)  and  I  work.  The  Son  can  do 
nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do  ;  for 
what  tilings  soever  he  doetli,  these  also  doeth  the  Son 
likewise.     For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead,  even  so 


DOCTKINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  157 

the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will ;  that  all  men  should 
iionour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father ;  for  he 
that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not  the  Father." 
John  V,  17-23. 

To  '•  redeem  us  to  God  by  his  blood,  the  Son,  by  the 
eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,"  Heb. 
ix,  14,  thus  making  "  himself  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to 
God  for  a  sweet-smelling  savour,"  Eph.  iv,  2 ;  and  the 
Father  by  the  Spirit,  Rom.  v,  24:  viii,  11,  "raised  the 
Son  from  the  dead,  for  our  justification." 

The  Father  <<  exalted  tlie  Son  to  his  own  right  hand," 
and  "glorified  him  with  his  own  self,  with  the  glory  which 
he  had  with  him  before  the  world  was,"  John  xvii,  5. 
"The  Son  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession,  and  is  able  to 
save  to  the  uttermost  all  that  come  to  God  by  him,"  Heb. 
vii,  26,  He  "  prays  the  Father  that  he  may  give  us  an- 
other Comforter,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,"  John  xiv,  17. 
He  has  ascended  up  on  high,  and  received  gifts  for  men, 
that  the  Lord  God  (by  the  Spirit)  may  dwell  among  them, 
Psalm  Ixviii,  18;  Eph.  iv,  7,  8.  "Behold  I  (says  the 
Son)  send  (the  Spirit)  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you,"  Luke  xxiv,  49.  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up. 
Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,"  Acts  ii,  33. 

"  Tlie  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  imto  the  Son.  For,  as  the  Father  hath  life  in 
liimself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself, 
and  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute  judgment  also," 
John  V,  22,  27.  "  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  bv 
Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  ii,  16.  "  Wlien,  therefore,  the  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels 
in  flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not 
God,"  1  Thess.  i,  8,  and  shall  have  pronounced  the  sen- 
tence  of  final  acquittal,  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father, 
inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  ;"  when  the  offering 
up  of  the  nations  shall  be  accepted,  being  sanctified  by  the 
Holy  GhJSt  ;  "  when  he  shall  have  put  all  enemies  under 
his  feet  : — he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even 
the  Father,  and  the  Son  also  himself  shall  be  subject  unto 
him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all,"  1  Cor.  XV,  24-28. 

14 


158  THE  SCRIPTURAL  USE  OF  THE 

From  the  various  combinations  of  this  mysterious  eco- 
nomy, ail  our  blessings,  but  especially  the  blessings  of  our 
redemption  and  salvation,  flow. 

1.  Mankind  are  ignorant  of  their  Maker.  "  Verily  he 
is  a  God  who  hideth  himself,"  Isa.  xlv,  15.  "  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  but  the  only  begotten  Son, 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him,"  John  i,  18.  "No  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the 
Father  ;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father  save  the 
Son  ;  and  he  to  wiiomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him," 
John  xi,  27.  Again,  on  the  other  hand  ;  '"  The  things  of 
God  knoweth  no  man  but  the  Spirit  of  God,"  1  Cor.  ii,  14. 
'*  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  1  Cor.  xii,  3.  "  But  when  the  Comforter 
is  come,"  says  the  Son  of  God,  "  whom  I  will  send  unto 
you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me,"  John  xv, 
26.  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  an- 
otber  Comforter,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth.  At  that  day  ye 
shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I 
in  you,"  John  xiv,  16,20.  When  "the  God  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  gives  unto  them  the 
Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him, 
so  that  the  eyes  of  their  understanding  may  be  enlight- 
ened," Eph.  i,  18  :  then  they  see  the  Son,  who  is  the 
express  image  of  the  Father's  person;  and  "seeing  the 
Son,  they  see  the  Father,"  John  xiv,  9  :  then  they  "  know 
the  Son,  and  know  the  Fatber  also,"  John  xiv,  7.  Thus 
"  God  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness, 
sliiiieth  in  their  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jc«us  Christ,"  2  Cor. 
iv,  6.  And  thus  "with  open  face  beholding  as  in  a  glass 
the  glorv  of  the  Lord,  they  are  clianged  into  the  same 
image,  from  glory  to  glory,  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord," 
2  Cor.  iii,  18. 

2.  "  All  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God,"  Rom.  iii,  23 ;  and  "  are  by  nature  the  children  of 
■wratb,".Eph.  ii,  3.  But  the  Son  has,  "  by  the  grace  of 
God,  tasted  death  for  every  man,"  Ileb.  ii,  9.  "He  was 
delivered  (to  death)  for  our  offences,  and  raised  again 
from  tlie  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father  for  our  juslilica- 
tion,"  Uom.  iv,  25;  vi,  4.     "God  was  in  Christ  recon- 


DOCTRINE    OF  THE    TRINITY.  159 

ciling  the  world  to  himself,"  2  Cor.  v,  19.  "  By  him  we 
believe  in  God,  who  raised  him  up  from  the  dead,  that  our 
faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God,"  1  Pet.  i,  21.  "There- 
fore, being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God  is 
shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is 
given  to  us,"  Rom.  v,  1,  5.  They  "  are  to  the  praise  of 
his  (the  Father's)  glory,  who  trust  in  Christ ;  in  whom, 
after  having  believed,  they  are  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit 
of  promise,"  Eph.  i,  12,  13.  They  are  "all  the  children 
of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  and  because  they  are 
sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  their 
hearts,  crying  Abba,  Father.  Wherefore  they  are  no 
more  servants,  but  sons  ;  and  if  sons,  then  heirs  of  God 
through  Christ,"  Gal.  iii,  26  ;  iv,  6,  7.  "The  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  his  abun- 
dant  mercy,  hath  now  begotten  them  again  unto  a  lively 
hope,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead, 
to  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  that 
fadeth  not  away,"  1  Pet.  i,  3,  4.  "  The  God  of  hope  fills 
them  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believing  that  they  may 
abound  in  hope,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
Rom.  XV,  13. 

3.  "  Without  Christ,"  mankind  are  "  without  God  in 
the  world,"  Eph.  ii,  12.  If  we  "  draw  nigh  unto  God, 
he  will  draw  nigh  to  us,"  James  iv,  8.  Now  "  no  man 
«ometh  unto  the  Father,  but  by  the  Son,"  John  xiv,  6. 
"  Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 
Father,"  1  John  ii,  23.  "No  man,  however,  can  come  to 
the  Son,  except  the  Father,  who  hath  sent  him,  draw  him," 
John  vi,  44  ;  but  drawn  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  "  through 
him  (the  Son)  we  have  an  access  by  the  Spirit  unto  the 
Father,"  Eph.  ii,  18.  The  Father  communicates  himself 
to  us  through  the  Son,  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  By  one 
Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  and  have  been  all 
made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit,"  1  Cor.  xii,  13.  Then  are 
we  the  mystical  "  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  parti- 
cular,"  iXor.  xii,  27.  "The  Father  of  glory  hath  made 
him  (the  Son)  the  head  over  all  to  the  church,  which  is 
the  body  of  him  (who  is)  the  fulness  of  him  that  fiUeth 
all  in  all,"  Eph.  i,  17,  22,  23.  Mystically  united  with  this 
glorious  head,  in  whom  as  his  "  dear  Son,  it  pleased  the 


160  USE    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRIMTT. 

Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell,"  Col.  i,  10  :  "  Of  his 
fulness  all  we  receive,  and  grace  for  grace,"  John  i,  16. 
Now,  therefore,  "  there  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  even 
as  we  are  called  in  one  hope  of  our  calling.  One  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism.  One  God  and  Fallier  of  all,  who 
is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all,"  Eph.  iv,  4—6. 
"  Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which 
is  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Cor.  iii,  11;  "to  whom  coming,  an 
unto  a  living  stone,  ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are  built  up 
a  spiritual  house,"  1  Pet.  i,  4,  5.  "Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief  corner  stone,  on  whom  ye  are  builded 
together  for  a  habitation  of  God,  through  the  Spirit," 
Eph.  ii,  20,  22.  «  For  this  cause,"  says  St.  Paiil,  "  I  bow 
my  knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
he  would  grant  you  to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  the 
Spirit  in  the  inner  man,  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your 
liearta  by  faith  ;  that  ye,  being  rooted  and  grounded  in 
love,  may  be  able  to  comprehend,  with  all  saints,  what  is 
the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,  and  height  ;  and  to 
know  the  love  of  Christ,  which  passeth  knowledge,  that 
ye  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God,"  Eph.  iii, 
14-19.  "Our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ,"  1  John  i,  3,  by  the  communion  of  that 
Spirit.  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,"  says  the  Son,  "  and  he 
shall  give  you  the  Spirit  of  truth  ;  for  he  dwelloth  with  you, 
and  shall  be  in  you.  At  that  day,  ye  shall  know  that  I 
am  in  my  father,  and  you  in  me,  and  I  in  you,"  John  xiv, 
16-20.  Thus  "  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  love  of  God,  and  the  conimunion  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are  with  us,"  2  Cor.  xiii,  14. 

Such  is  the  manner  in  which  the.sacred  writers  have 
delivered  to  us  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  That  doctrine 
is  never  abstracted  from  the  plan  of  human  redemption, 
but  inextricably  interwoven  with  it.  As  the  foundation 
cannot  be  destroyed  without  the  ruin  of  the  whole  super- 
structure, it  is  consistent  enough  in  the  Socinians  to 
attempt  at  once  the  destruction  of  the  whole  fabric. 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.        161 

CHAPTER  X. 

Of  the  Propitiatory  Sacrifice  of  the  Death  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

To  place  this  important  subject  on  its  proper  basis,  and 
to  exhibit  it  in  that  light  in  which  it  appears  in  the  book 
of  revelation,  we  must  consider  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  as  the  history  of  human  redemption.  The 
Old  Testament  was  designed  to  suggest  those  ideas,  and 
to  establish  those  principles,  which  should  prepare  the 
minds  of  God's  people  for  the  reception  of  that  method  of 
salvation  which  was  to  be  more  perfectly  developed  by 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  For  this  purpose  its  insti- 
tutions were  "  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  but  not 
the  very  image  of  the  things,"  Heb.  x,  1. 

That  the  legal  institutions  might  answer  this  great  and 
necessary  end,  the  government  erected  in  Israel  was  a 
theocracy.  Jehovah  was  their  chief  magistrate.  "  The 
Lord  was  their  king  ;  the  Lord  was  their  lawgiver  ;  the 
Lord  was  their  judge."  Hence,  when  "  the  elders  of 
Israel  came  to  Samuel,  and  said.  Make  us  a  kino-  to 
judge  us  like  all  the  nations,  the  Lord  said  unto  Samuel, 
They  have  not  rejected  thee,  but  they  have  rejected  me, 
that  I  should  not  reign  over  them,"  1  Sam.  viii,  4,  7. 

As  God  was  to  them  in  the  place  of  a  secular  king,  he 
dwelt  in  the  midst  of  them.  "  The  Lord  his  God  was 
with  him,  and  the  shout  of  a  king  was  among  them," 
Num.  .\xiii,  21.  The  tabernacle  was  the  place  where  he 
held  his  court,  and  the  holy  of  holies  was  his  pavilion. 
There  the  king  of  Israel  resided,  and  manifested  his  royal 
presence  by  the  shechinah.  There,  as  their  lawgiver, 
he  was  consulted  ;  and  as  their  judge,  he  administered 
justice. 

He  not  only  gave  them  political  and  civil  laws,  but  also 
instituted  a  ceremonial,  by  which  in  consideration  of  his 
dwelling  anaong  them,  and  to  habituate  them  to  a  profound 
reverence  for  the  presence  of  his  truly  gracious  Majesty, 
he  enforced  on  them  an  extraordinary  degree  of  external 
purity.  To  preserve  the  honour  of  the  Jewish  ritual,  and 
to  promote  the  reverence  which  was  due  to  Israel's  Kin"-, 
14*  " 


162       PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF  JESUS    CHRIST. 

the  priests  and  Levites  were  appointed  as  servants  id 
waiting.  Through  them  only  the  people  could  have  access 
to  their  Sovereign,  and  by  them  all  their  offerings  were  to 
be  presented  to  him.  Those  offerings  were  of  two  kinds  : 
some  were  eucharistical,  and  were  offered  in  acknowledg- 
ment of  benefits  received  ;  others  were  piacular,  and  were 
offered  to  avert  impending  evil,  or  to  regain  forfeited 
blessings.  This  is  an  important  distinction  which  is  pre- 
served through  the  whole  of  the  Levitical  law,  and  is 
particularly  noticed  by  an  apostle  :  "  For  every  high 
priest  taken  from  among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in 
things  (pertaining)  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices  for  sins,"  Heb.  v,  1. 

The  gifts  which  the  apostle  here  mentions  were  un- 
doubtedly the  meat-oflerings,  the  drink-offerings,  the  offer- 
ing of  the  first  fruits,  the  thank-ofi'erings,  the  free-will 
offerings,  and  the  peace-offerings.  From  these  gifts,  the 
"  sacrifices  for  sins"  are  always  to  be  particularly  distin- 
guished, as  their  nature  and  design  were  essentially  dif- 
ferent. And  this  difference  renders  that  comparison 
which,  for  the  sake  of  reducing  the  "  sin-offering"  to  the 
standard  of  their  own  opinion,  the  Socinians  njake  between 
them,  altogether  inadmissible.  No  proof  of  what  was,  or 
what  was  not,  the  design  of  the  "  gifts,"  can  afford  any 
decisive  evidence  concerning  the  design  of  the  '*  sacrifices 
for  sin." 

"A  sacrifice  for  sin  is  a  sacrifice  to  expiate  the  guilt  of 
sin,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  avert  the  punishment  I'rom  the 
offender."  (Magee.)  Such  were  the  sin-offerings  insti- 
tuted by  the  Levitical  law. 

The  ceremonial  enjoined  by  the  King  of  Israel  was 
such  that  it  was  unavoidable  in  many  cases  that  persona 
should,  on  account  of  some  impurity,  or  the  neglect  of 
some  of  its  ordinances,  be  excluded  by  it  from  the  congre- 
gation, and  from  all  its  privileges.  That  iniimrily  might 
be  contracted  by  accident,  ignorance,  inattention,  or  natu- 
ral or  constitutional  infirmity.  A  breach  of  the  civil  code 
was  followed  by  the  same  consequences  ;  for.  ( however  as 
an  offence  against  a  brother  it  might  be  pardonable  when 
restitution  was  made.)  as  it  was  an  otfence  against  the 
legislator,  the  oflender,  as  in  the  preceding  case,  was  not 
permitted  to  appear  in  the  congregation  till  the  perforni^ 


PROPITIATORY   SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.         163 

ance  of  certain  expiations  and  ablutions.  See  Lev^xvii, 
20,  21.  In  such  cases  "  all  things  under  the  law  were 
purged  with  blood,  and  without  shedding  of  blood  was  no 
remission,"  Heb.  ix,  22.  For  these  purposes  were  ap- 
pointed the  various  sin-offerings,  by  which,  when  the  im- 
pure were  absolved  and  purified,  they  were  admitted  into 
his  courts,  and  their  worship  was  accepted. 

Of  these  sin-offerings  the  nature,  occas^ion,  and  design 
are  fully  exhibited  in  the  Levitical  law  of  sacrifices.  The 
following  passage,  instead  of  many,  will  set  this  subject 
before  the  reader  at  one  view  :  "  If  the  whole  congrega- 
tion of  Israel  sin  through  ignorance,  and  the  thing  be 
hid  from  the  eyes  of  the  assembly,  and  they  have  done 
(somewhat  against)  any  of  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord,  (concerning  things)  which  should  not  be  done,  and 
are  guilty ;  when  the  sin  which  they  sinned  against  it 
is  known,  then  the  congregation  shall  offer  a  young  bul- 
lock for  the  sin,  and  bring  him  before  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation.  And  the  elders  of  the  congregation 
shall  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  bullock  before 
the  Lord  ;  and  the  bullock  shall  be  killed  before  the  Lord. 
And  the  priest  that  is  anointed  shall  bring  of  the  bullock's 
blood  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation ;  and  the 
priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  (some)  of  the  blood,  and 
sprinkle  it  seven  times  before  the  Lord,  even  before 
the  veil.  And  he  shall  put  (some)  of  the  blood  upon 
the  horns  of  the  altar  which  is  before  the  Lord,  that 
is  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  shall  pour 
out  all  the  blood  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar  of  the  burnt- 
offering,  which  is  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation  :  and  he  shall  take  all  his  fat  from  him,  and 
burn  it  upon  the  altar.  And  he  shall  do  with  the  bullock 
as  he  did  with  the  bullock  for  a  sin-offering,  so  shall  he  do 
with  this  :  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for 
them,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  them.  And  he  shall  carry 
forth  the  bullock  without  the  camp,  and  burn  him  as  he 
burned  the  first  bullock  ;  it  is  a  sin-offering  for  the  con- 
gregatioHf"  Lev.  iv,  13-21. 

Here  we  have  a   full  account  of  the  nature,  occasion, 
design,  and  effect  of  a  sin-offering. 

1.  The  sin  of  the  congregation  is  so  distinctly  marked, 
that  to  write  one  sentence  to  convince  the  reader  that  that 


164       PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESDS    CHRIST- 

sin  is  the  occasion  of  the  offering,  and  that  for  which  it 
was  offered,  would  be  an  insult  on  his  understanding. 

2.  The  Jewish  lawgiver  plainly  says,  "  The  life  of  the 
flesh  is  in  the  blood  ;  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the 
altar,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls ;  for  it  is  the 
blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul,"  Lev.  xvii, 
11,  Now,  in  the  preceding  appointment  of  a  sin-offering, 
it  is  particularly  required  that  "  tiie  blood,  in  which  is  the 
life  of  the  ilesh,"  shall  be  sprinkled  before  the  Lord,  and 
put  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  within  the  ta4)ernacle, — that 
all  the  rest  of  the  blood  shall  be  poured  out  at  the  foot  of 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  that  thus  an  atonement  shall 
be  made,  that  the  sin  may  be  forgiven. 

All  this  the  Socinians  will  grant  if  they  may  be  permit, 
ted  to  put  their  own  construction  on  the  word  atonement. 
What  that  construction  is  Mr.  G.  will  now  inform  us. 
"  The  word  translated  atone  (he  says)  signifies  to  cover, 
hide,  conceal  some  blemish."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  143.)  Very 
true :  and  its  application  may  be  seen  at  once  in  those 
words:  "Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven, 
and  whose  sins  are  covered  :"  by  which  is  described  •'  the 
blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God  imputeth  right- 
eousness  without  works,"  Rom.  iv,  6,  7.  An  atonement 
is,  therefore,  that  which,  as  it  were,  hidoth  the  sin  from 
Him  wlio  is  "of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity."  This 
is  its  ideal  meaning  lie  proceeds  :  "  With  the  meaning  of 
reconciliation,  the  English  word  atonement  perfectly 
accords.  It  is  derived  from  the  two  words,  at,  one,  with 
the  termination  mcnt,  atonement.  It  signifies  to  bring  toge- 
ther to  ternjs  of  amity  two  persons  that  were  before  alien- 
ated from  each  other.  This  is  precisely  the  meaning  of 
to  rccoririlc.  In  this  reconciliation  the  change  is  never 
said  to  be  in  God,  i)ut  always  in  man."  (V  ol.  ii,  p.  140.) 
Wo  cannot,  on  this  occasion,  do  justice  to  the  subject 
without  remarking  :  (I.)  That  Mr.  G.  has  made  a  transi- 
tion from  the  ideal  meaning  of  the  original  word  to  that 
of  the  1'inglisl),  and  thus  has  relinquished  tiie  former  :  and 
(2.)  That  he  has  mad(!  pretty  free  with  tlie  meaning  of 
words,  when,  proceeding  by  gradations,  he  assumes  that 
the  word  atonement,  as  used  in  the  Olil  Testament,  per- 
fectly accords  with  the  word  reconciliation.  It  is  true 
they  are  sometimes,  by  a  figure,  as  cause  and  effect,  sub- 


rROPlTIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.         165 

stituted  for  each  other.  Atonement  is  the  mean  ;  recon- 
cihation  the  end  effected  by  that  mean.  What  is  the  na- 
ture  of  that  reconciliation  which  is  the  effect  of  atone- 
ment, we  will  now  inquire. 

We  are  are  aware  that,  in  contradicting  Mr.  G.'s  state- 
ment, it  would  sound  rather  harsh  to  say  roundly,  The 
change  was  in  God.  We  acknowledge  the  immutability 
of  the  nature  and  perfections  of  God ;  but  dare  not  attri- 
bute to  him  the  immutability  of  a  stone.  Without  any 
change  in  what  he  is,  God  can  undoubtedly  change  in 
what  he  does.  He  can  at  one  time  be  angry  with  us,  and 
at  another  time  turn  away  his  anger.  That,  as  a  secular 
governor,  he  did  thus  change  when  atonement  was  made, 
we  prove  thus  : — 

(1.)  It  was  not  because  God  had  offended  the  men,  but 
because  the  men  had  ofl'ended  God,  that  the  sin-of!'ering 
was  to  be  offered.  And  because  God  was  offended,  God 
was  to  be  conciliated. 

(2.)  It  was  not  God  who  presented  the  sin-offering  to 
the  congregation  :  but  the  congregation  who  presented  it 
to  God.  The  offering  was  therefore  made,  not  to  "  bring 
the  men  to  terms  of  amity  :"  but  to  "  bring"  God  "  to  terms 
of  amity  :"  or,  to  speak  with  more  propriety,  it  was  the 
condition  on  which  God  proposed  to  be  propitious  to  them. 

(3.)  In  the  case  of  peace-offerings,  which  were  tokens 
of  an  existing,  mutual  friendship,  the  offerer  was  allowed 
to  eat  a  part  of  the  offering,  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord. 
See  Lev.  vii,  11-19.  But  "  no  sin-offering,  whereof  any 
of  the  blood  was  brought  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation,  to  reconcile  withal  in  the  holy  place,  shall  be 
eaten  :  it  shall  be  burned  in  the  fire,"  Lev.  vi,  30.  A 
clear  proof  that  God  in  the  holy  place  was  to  be  conci- 
liated by  it ;  and  not  the  men,  who  were  not  permitted  to 
participate  it. 

(4.)  When  the  congregation  had  sinned,  God  permitted 
them  not  to  enjoy  "  the  privileges  of  his  peculiar  people  ;" 
whereas  when  the  sin-offering  had  been  presented,  he  did 
permit  them.  In  other  words  :  the  forgiveness  was  not 
on  the  part  of  the  congregation,  but  God  (as  their  secu- 
lar governor)  forgave  their  sin.  "  He  shall  make  an 
atonement  for  them,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  them." 

To  this  application  of  the  word  atonement,  Mr.  G. 


166       PROPITIATOBV    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

has,  however,  several  objections  which  demand  our  at- 
tention. 

(1.)  The  first  to  which  we  shall  attend  are  those  which 
are  taken  from  the  persons  or  things  for  which  atonement 
is  said  to  be  made. 

He  thinks  that  atonement  can  only  imply  "  a  consecra- 
tion or  dedication  to  God,"  because  atonement  is  said  to 
have  been  made  "  at  the  consecration  of  Aaron,  and  his 
sons  to  the  priest's  office ;  at  the  dedication  of  the  Levites 
to  their  ministry  ;  at  the  first  act  of  worship  in  which  the 
people  of  Israel  joined  under  the  new  high  priest ;  at 
solemn  festivals  ;  and  as  a  voluntary  donation."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  141.)  He  has  quite  forgotten  that  the  Jews  were  not 
so  "  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners," 
but  that  the  "  high  priest  needed  daily  to  offer  up  sacri- 
fice, first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's,"  Heb. 
vii,  26,  27.  Let  him  prove  that  they  had  no  sin  to  expi- 
ate, and  then  he  may  infer  that  these  atonements  were  not 
for  their  sins.  As  to  the  •'  voluntary  donation,"  Job 
oflered  burnt-offerings  for  his  sons,  because,  said  he,  "  It 
may  be  that  my  sons  have  sinned,"  Job  i,  5.  And  why 
might  not  God  allow  a  conscientious  Jew,  for  a  similar 
reason,  to  make  a  voluntary  oflering  as  an  atonement  ? 
It  is  not  clear,  however,  that  the  passage  to  which  Mr. 
G.  alludes.  Lev.  i,  3,  does  speak  of  a  voluntary  atone- 
ment. The  word  is  "  iJin*?,  leretsono,  to  gain  himsel  f 
acceptance  before  the  Lord.  In  this  way  all  the  versions 
appear  to  have  understood  the  original  words ;  and  the 
connection  in  which  they  stand  obviously  requires  this 
meaning."     {Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  Joe.) 

But  "  a  great  part  of  the  atonementS^  had  no  reference 
to  character  whatever,  but  were  appointed  for  things  inani- 
mate, as  altars,  tabernacles,"  &c.  (Vol.  ii.  p.  143.)  This 
is  some  proof  that  an  atonement  was  not  made  to  con. 
ciliate  that  for  which  it  was  made.  How  could  an  altar  or 
a  tabernacle  be  conciliated  ?  The  truth  is.  that,  in  atoning 
for  the  altar  and  the  tabernacle,  the  atonement  was  made 
for  the  |)eople  who  were  to  present  themselves  before  the 
door  of  the  latter,  and  their  offerings  on  the  former.  Thus 
it  was  ordiiin(!(l  that  the  high  priest  "  shall  make  atone- 
ment for  the  holy  place,  because  of  the  uncleanness  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  transgressions  in 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.        167 

all  their  sins  :  and  so  shall  he  do  for  the  tabernaele  of  the 
congregation  that  remaineth  among  them  in  the  midst  of 
their  uncleanness,"  Lev.  xvi,  16. 

(2.)  The  second  class  of  objections  are  taken  from  the 
nature  of  the  sins  for  which  atonement  was  made.  "  The 
term  atonement  is  used  in  reference  to  bodily  diseases 
and  infirmities,  the  commission  of  sins  of  ignorance,  and 
only  in  two  cases  are  sacrificial  atonements  appointed  to 
be  made  for  wiU'ul  violations  of  the  moral  law."  (Vol.  ii, 
pp.  141,  142.) 

That  is,  in  plain  terms,  the  legal  atonements  were  not 
made  for  transgressions  of  the  universal  law  of  righteous- 
ness, but  for  transgressions  of  some  of  the  ceremonial  and 
civil  laws,  which  God  had  given  to  them  as  their  chief 
magistrate.  The  impurities  contracted  by  certain  "  dis- 
eases  and  infirmities,"  and  the  "  sins  of  ignorance,"  were 
transgressions  of  the  ceremonial  law.  The  former  were 
considered  as  attendants  on  some  sin,  and  were  in  fact 
the  consequences  of  the  fallen  state  of  human  nature.  The 
latter  were  sins  committed  in  the  misapplication  of  the 
sacred  things  through  avoidable  ignorance.  The  "  wilful 
violations"  for  which  atonements  were  appointed,  were 
cases  of  "  dishonest  dealing,"  and  "  the  treatment  of 
slaves,"  which  were  breaches  of  the  civil  law.  They  all 
referred  to  the  Jewish  polity,  and  the  atonement  was 
made  to  restore  the  men  to  the  privileges  of  that  polity, 
which  by  these  transgressions  they  forfeited.  It  was  an 
atonement  suited  to  the  nature  of  the  sin,  of  the  evils  to 
be  averted,  and  of  the  benefits  to  be  recovered.  But  still 
it  was  an  atonement  for  sin.  In  the  case  of  dishonest 
dealing,  the  dishonest  person  was  obliged,  first,  to  make 
an  atonement  to  the  man  whom  he  had  injured,  by  restor- 
ing the  property  embezzled,  and  one-fifth  part  more;  and 
then  to  make  also  an  atonement  to  the  legislator,  whose 
laws  he  had  wilfully  violated. 

(3.)  The  third  class  of  objections  are  taken  from  the 
effect  of  the  atonement  to  be  made.  '•  The  atonement 
only  referred  to  religious  privileges."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  143.) 

Mr.  G.  might  have  said  civil  and  religious  privileges  ; 
for  the  civil  and  ritual  law  were  blended  together.  There 
is  some  truth  in  this.  The  sins  for  which  atonement  was 
made,  were  such  as  excluded  the  sinner  from  the  congre- 


168       PROPITIATOfiY    SACRIFICE    OF   JEStJS    CHRIST. 

gation  of  Israel,  and,  if  not  atoned  when  known,  procured 
a  sentence  of  anathema.  This  sentence  was  revoked 
when  the  proper  atonement  was  made,  and  the  person  pre- 
viously deemed  "  guilty"  was  now  "  forgiven,"  and  was 
admitted  to  the  pecuhar  privileges  which  he  had  forfeit- 
ed. But  still  the  atonement  is  always  called  an  atone- 
ment for  his  sin. 

(4.)  The  fourth  class  of  objections  are  taken  from  those 
passages  which  declare  that  sacrifices  could  not  supply 
the  place  of  repentance,  reformation,  and  obedience. 
"  Thou  desirest  not  sacrifice  ;"  "  tliou  delightest  not  in 
burnt-offerings  ;"  "  the  sacrifice  of  God  is  a  broken  spi- 
rit,"  &ic.,  &c.     (Vol.  ii,  p.  147.) 

The  question  is  not,  would  the  Jewish  sacrifices  stand 
instead  of  morality  and  piety,  or  of  repentance  and  refor- 
mation  ?  but  were  they  appointed  for  the  ceremonial 
expiation  of  certain  sins,  of  a  penitent  sinner,  against  the 
Jev,'ish  law  ?  We  have  found  that  they  were. 

3.  In  order,  however,  that  the  sin-oflering  by  which 
atonement  was  made,  might  be  etfectual  to  procure  the 
forgiveness  of  the  sin  for  which  it  was  offered,  the  sinner 
must  confess  his  sin,  and  acknowledge  the  sacrifice  as 
his  own,  and  that  he  ollercd  it  as  an  atonement  for  his 
sin.  The  confession  of  his  sin  is  sometimes  mentioned. 
"  He  shall  confess  that  ho  hath  sinned  in  that  thing;  and 
he  shall  bring  his  trespass. oflering  unto  the  Lord,"  Lev.  v. 
5.  (See  Num.  v,  7.)  This  is  also  particularly  enjoined 
on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  and  the  meaning  of  it  is 
distinctly  stated.  "And  Aaron  (as  the  representative 
of  all  the  people)  shall  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head 
of  the  live  goat,  and  confess  over  hin/all  the  iniquities  of 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  all  their  transgressions  in  all 
their  sins,  putting  them  »ij>on  the  head  of  the  goat,"  Lev. 
xvi,  21.  In  the  passage  more  immediately  under  con- 
sideration,  as  well  as  in  the  institution  of  sin-otVcrings  in 
general,  the  offerers  were  retpiired  either  pcrsoDtillv,  or 
by  their  representatives,  to  "  bring"  the  victim  "  before 
the  talrernacle  of  the  conijregation,"  and  to  "  lay  their 
hands  u|)on  its  head  before  the  Lord."  Hv  this  act  they 
designated  it  as  their  offering  to  make  atonement  for  their 
sin  ;  and  their  sin  was  consequently  forgiven. 

As  this  economy   was  intended  to  adumbrate  the  di>3« 


rROPlTlATORY   SACRIFICE  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  169 

pensation  of  the  gospel,  the  principles  on  which  it  was 
founded,  and  the  doctrines  which  it  holds  forth,  are  to  be 
applied  for  the  illustration  of  our  subject  :  these  being  the 
shadows  of  which  Christ  is  the  substance. 

In  the  Christian  economy,  and  under  the  government 
of  Him  who  is  "  a  great  King  in  all  the  earth,"  Jesus 
Christ  is  ordained  "  the  High  Priest  of  our  profession," 
Heb.  iii,  2.  In  him  we  have  one  infinitely  greater  than 
Aaron  or  his  sons.  "  We  have  a  great  High  Priest,  that 
is  passed  into  (or  through)  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of 
God,"  Heb.  iv,  14.  "We  have  such  a  High  Priest 
who  is  set  on  the  throne  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens  : 
a  minister  of  the  sanctuary,  and  of  the  true  tabernacle^ 
which  the  Lord  pitched,  and  not  man,"  Heb.  viii,  1,  2. 
For  "  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made 
with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the  true ;  but  into 
heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for 
us,"  Heb.  ix,  24.  And  "  no  man  cometh  to  the  Father 
but  by  him,"  John  xiv,  6. 

As  "  every  high  priest  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and 
sacrifices,  it  is  of  necessity  that  this  man  have  somewhat 
to  offer."  The  priests  who  "  offered  gifts  according  to 
the  law,  served  only  unto  the  example  and  shadow  of 
heavenly  things.  But  now  hath  he  obtained  a  more  ex- 
cellent ministry,  by  how  much  also  he  is  the  mediator  of  a 
bettercovenant,  which  is  established  upon  better  promises," 
Heb.  viii,  3-6.  "  The  way  into  the  holiest  of  all  was  not 
yet  made  manifest,  while  as  the  first  tabernacle  was  yet 
standing :  which  was  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present, 
in  which  were  ofl^ered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  that  could 
not  make  him  that  did  the  service  perfect,  as  pertaining 
to  the  conscience.  But  Christ  being  come  a  High  Priest 
of  good  things  to  come,  by  a  greater  and  more  perfect 
tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of 
this  building ;  neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves, 
but  by  his  own  blood  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy 
place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us,"  Heb 
ix,  8-12f 

In  these  interesting  passages  the  reader  will  perceive  a 

continued  comparison  between  the  priesthood,  ministry, 

and   sacrifices  of  the   Jewish  institution,  and  those  of 

Jesus  Christ :  the  design  of  which  is  to  show  that  the 

15 


170         PROPITIATORY  SACRIFICK  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

former  was  figurative  of  the  latter,  and  that  the  latter 
resembles,  but  infinitely  excels,  the  former. 

The  oblations  of  the  Jewish  high  priest,  we  have 
found,  were  "gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins."  That  which 
our  great  Higii  Priest  ofl'ered,  was  of  the  latter  kind, 
a  sin-ofiering  ;  as  is  sufficiently  obvious  from  the  follow- 
ing passages : — "  When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an 
offering  for  sin,"  Isa.  liii,  ]  0.  "  He  hath  made  him  to  be 
afiapTiav,  a  sin-offering  for  us,"  2  Cor.  v,  21.  "  Who 
needcth  not  delay  to  ofier  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his  own 
sin,  and  then  for  the  people's:  for  this  he  did  once  when 
he  offered  up  himself,"  Heb.  vii,  27.  "Now  once  he  hath 
appeared,  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself," 
Heb.  i.x,  25.  "  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins 
of  many,"  Heb.  ix,  28.  "But  this  man  after  he  had 
offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,"  &c.,  Heb.  x,  12.  And 
"there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins,"  Heb. 
X,  26. 

What  then  is  the  jneaning  of  these  phrases  ?  Mr.  G. 
explains  them  thus : — "  In  every  sacrifice  the  victim  is 
supposed  to  die  for  the  good  and  benefit  (not  for  the  sins, 
it  seems)  of  the  persons  on  whose  account  it  is  otfered  : 
80  Christ,  dying  in  the  cause  of  virtue,  and  to  bestow  the 
greatest  of  all  blessings  upon  the  human  race,  a  proof  of 
a  future  state,  is  beautifiilly  represented  as  having  given 
his  life  a  sacrifice  for  us.  The  reseml)lance  between  the 
death  of  Christ,  according  to  this  account  ot"  the  nature 
and  object  of  it,  and  the  sin-offerings  spoken  of  in  the  Old 
Testament,  appears  to  me  to  be  a  sufficient  foundation  for 
its  being  called  by  that  name,  and  would  abundantly  justify 
the  metaphor,"  &c.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  148.)'  What  striking  re- 
semblance Mr.  G.  sees  between  a  martyr  dying  in  the 
cause  of  virtue,  and  a  victim  bleeding  for  sin  :  or  between 
an  animal  which  died  and  was  no  more,  and  a  person  who 
died  to  give  a  proof  of  a  future  state  by  his  resurrection, 
we  confe.ss  our  inability  to  conjecture.  If  the  advocates 
of  proper  atonement  were  obliged  to  interi>ret  the  scrip, 
tures  which  relate  to  that  subject  in  tliis  vague  manner, 
and  could  give  no  more  rational  or  scriptural  proof  of  the 
justness  of  tiieir  opinions  than  is  contained  in  this  unmean- 
ing cant  of  Mr.  (i.  and  the  editor  of  the  Theological 
Repository,  how  would  the  Socinians  triumph  !  But  leaving 


PROPITIATORY  SACRIFICE  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  171 

this  explanation  to  its  unavoidable  fate,  we  appeal  to  the 
Scriptures,  in  proof  that  the  application  of  the  phrase, 
"  sacrifice  for  sin,"  to  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  a  "  meta- 
phor," as  Mr.  G.  calls  it,  in  which  all  discernible  analogy- 
is  lost ;  but  that  in  all  the  circumstances  essential  to  a  sin. 
offering,  that  of  Jesus  Christ  agrees  with  those  which  were 
offered  under  the  law^. 

1.  We  have  seen  that  the  sacrifices  for  sins  were  offered 
by  the  Jewish  priests  on  account  of  the  sins  of  the  people. 
The  following  passages  will  distinctly  show  that  Jesus 
Christ  offered  up  himself  for  the  sins  of  mankind  : — "  He 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for 
our  iniquities.  All  we,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray  ;  we 
have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ;  and  the  Lord  hath 
laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  For  the  transgression 
of  my  people  was  he  stricken.  He  shall  bear  their  ini. 
quities.  He  hath  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death ;  and  he 
Avas  numbered  with  the  transgressors  :  and  he  bare  the  sin 
of  many,"  Isa.  liii,  5,  6,  8,  11,  12.  "  Who  was  delivered 
for  our  offences,"  Rom.  iv,  25.  "  I  deUvered  unto  yoil 
first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died 
for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures,"  1  Cor.  xv,  3. 
"  Who  gave  himself  for  our  sins,"  Gal.  i,  4.  "  Who  his 
own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,"  1  Pet. 
ii,  24. 

2.  The  Jewish  sin-offerings  made  an  atonement  for  the 
persons  for  whom  they  were  offered,  in  consequence  of 
which  their  sins  were  forgiven.  (See  page  164.)  It  has 
been  remarked  that  the  blood,  which  is  the  life,  is  that 
which  made  atonement  for  the  soul.  Now,  as  under  the 
law  the  blood  of  the  victim  was  shed,  so  the  "blood  of 
Christ  was  shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  Matt, 
xxvi,  28,  and  as  in  the  former  case  the  high  priest  went 
into  the  most  holy  place  with  the  "  blood  which  he  offered 
for  himself,  and  for  the  errors  of  the  people,"  Heb.  ix.  7, 
so  "  Christ  by  his  own  blood  entered  once  into  the  holy 
place,  (not  made  with  hands,)  having  obtained  eternal 
redemption  for  us,"  Heb.  ix,  12.  Thus,  as  the  Jewish 
high  priest  made  atonement  by  the  shedding  and  sprinkling 
of  blood,  Jesus  Christ  has  made  atonement  by  the  shed- 
ding and  "  sprinkling"  of  his  blood. 

The  words  used  on  this  subject,  by  the  sacred  writers, 


172        PROPITIATORY  SACRIFICE  OP  JESDS  CHRIST. 

are  the  same  which  are  used  by  the  LXX,  viz.,  the  deriva- 
tives of  iAau,  I  am  propitious.  Those  interpreters  render 
Lev.  iv,  20,  26,  35,  6i.c.,  "  the  priest  shall  make  atone- 
ment," by  e^iAaaerai.  In  Ezek.  xHv,  27,  where  it  is  said 
the  priest  shall  bring  his  peace-oftering,  they  use  the  word 
iXaafiov.  Thus,  in  like  manner,  the  Prophet  Daniel,  pre- 
dicting the  death  of  the  Messiah,  declares  it  to  be  one  part 
of  the  design  of  it,  according  to  the  LXX,  e^i?.acraaeai,  to 
make  atonement  or  propitiation  for  iniquity,  Dan.  ix,  24. 
The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  says,  "  It  behooved"  Christ  as 
our  "  merciful  High  Priest,  i/.aaKeaSat,  to  make  atonement 
or  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people,"  Heb.  ii,  17. 
Hence  Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  be  a  propitiation  or  atone- 
ment for  our  sins.  "  God  loved  us ;  and  sent  his  Son 
iXacfiov,  a  propitiation  or  atonement  for  our  sins,"  1  John 
iv,  10.  "If  ajiy  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous,  and  he  is  i?.aafio^,  the 
propitiation  or  atonement  for  our  sins,"  1  John  ii,  2.  In 
his  unguarded  etfort  to  get  rid  of  this  word,  (vol.  ii,  page 
151,)  Mr.  G.  has  confounded  it  with  lAaarj/piov,  Avhich 
means  a  propitiatory.  It  is  not  improbable  that  St.  Paul 
meant  by  it  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  But  we  found  no 
argument  upon  it,  because,  though  it  cannot  be  disproved, 
it  may  be  disputed.  To  serve  an  hypotliesis  Mr.  G. 
translates  it,  "a  mercy  seat."  But  this  shifting  of  the 
terms  destroys  his  argument.*  The  reader  will  do  well 
to  keep  in  mind  that  the  one  proper  word  which  in  the 

♦  Dr.  Prie-stley,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  History  of  the  Doctrine  of 
Aloncment,  has  explicitly  granted  that  the  Socinian.s  had  not  yet 
been  alile  "to  e.xplnin  all  jiariicuiar  expressions  in  the  apostolical 
epi!5tles,  &c.,  in  a  manner  perfectly  consistent  with  (what  they  deem) 
the  general  strain  of  their  own  writings."  {Hist,  of  Cor.  toI.  i,  p. 
^0.)  It  would  have  been  candid  to  have  told  the  public  which  are 
all  those  "  particular  expressions."  The  word  i?.aafio^.  propitiation, 
seems  to  be  one  of  them,  which  therefore  he  has  pa.'Nsed  over  by  jusl 
ob.serving  that  1  John  ii,  '2,  and  iv,  10," are  the  onlvplaces  in  which 
the  word  propitiation,  I'/aa/joc,  occurs  in  the  New  Testament."  (P. 
183.)  He  had  overlooked  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  This  one  word  wa.s  too  hard  for  him:  and  well  it 
might,  for  it  is  directly  to  the  point.  But  Mr.  G.  is  a  little  more 
hardy,  and  venture.s,  since  Dr.  Priestley  could  not  "explain"  this 
"  particular  expression  in  the  apostolic  epistles  without  any  eHort 
or  straining,"  to  make  a  mighty  "  etfort,"  and  to  "  strain"  very  much 
to  explain  it  according  to  his  own  hypothesis  But  his  "straining 
effort"  tends  onlv  to  his  own  discomrtture. 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  173 

original  means  propitiation  or  atonement,  remains  unan- 
swered, and  is  unanswerable. 

The  purpose  of  atonement  or  propitiation,  is  reconcilia- 
tion. It  is  not  denied,  but  asserted,  by  Mr.  G.,  tliat  "  we 
are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,"  Rom.  v, 
10.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  144.)  "But  in  this  reconciliation,"  he 
says,  "•  the  change  is  never  said  to  be  in  God,  but  always 
in  man."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  146.)  The  phrase  "  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  God,"  is  certainly  ambiguous,  and  may  be  inter- 
preted as  meaning  either  to  be  conciliated  by  him,  or  to  be 
admitted  to  his  friendship.  It  becomes,  therefore,  an  im- 
portant question.  What  is  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in 
the  Scriptures? 

When  the  Philistines  suspected  that  David,  who  was 
then  with  them,  would  appease  the  anger  of  Saul  by  be- 
coming their  adversary,  they  said,  '•  Wherewith  should  he 
reconcile  himself  unto  his  master  ?  should  it  not  be  with 
the  heads  of  these  men  ?"  1  Sam.  xxix,  4.  Here,  to  recon- 
cile one's  self  to  another  is  obviously  to  appease  his  wrath, 
or  conciliate  his  favour.  "  If  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar, 
and  there  rememberest  that  thy  brotlier  hath  aught  against 
thee,  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,"  Matt,  v,  23,  24. 
Here  the  case  is  that  of  a  brother  offended  ;  and  to  be 
reconciled  to  him  is  to  appease  or  conciliate  him.  The 
next  passage  is  still  more  in  point,  because  it  refers  to 
the  case  in  hand  :  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the 
world  to  himself,  not  imputing  to  them  their  trespasses," 
2  Cor.  V,  13.  Here  for  God  to  reconcile  the  world  to 
himself  is  to  forgive  their  trespasses.  From  these  passages, 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  plain,  and  no  ambiguity  re- 
mains. It  is  in  this  sense  "  we  are  reconciled  to  God,  by 
the  death  of  his  Son,"  Rom.  v,  10. 

The  effect  of  the  Jewish  atonements  was,  that  the  sins 
of  the  persons  for  whom  they  were  offered  were  forgiven. 
(See  p.  166.)  Such  precisely  is  the  consequence  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  as  the  following  passages  will  sufficiently 
prove  -.-W  My  righteous  servant  shall  justify  many,  for  he 
shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  Isa.  liii,  11.  "This  is  my 
blood  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins,"  Matt,  xxvi,  28.  "  We  have  redemp- 
tion through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  Eph.  i,  7. 
See  also  Col.  i,  14.  "Being  now  justified  by  his  blood," 
15* 


174         PROPITIATOKY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

Rom.  V,  9.     Thus,  "  God  for  Christ's  sake  (says  St.  Paul) 
hath  forgiven  you,"  Eph.  iv,  32. 

3.  The  benefit  of  the  sin-ofiering  was  appropriated  by 
the  person  for  whom  an  atonement  was  to  be  made,  by 
his  confession  of  his  sin,  and  his  acknowledgment  of  the 
sacrifice  as  otiered  for  him.  Just  so  to  appropriate  the 
benefit  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Christ,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  men  should  confess  their  sin  with  a  penitent 
heart,  and  depend  on  the  propitiation  which  he  has  made. 
He  that  thus  appropriates  the  benefit  of  his  sacrifice  ob- 
tains mercy.  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and 
just  to  forgive  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  frorn  all  un- 
righteousness,"  1  John  i,  9.  "  All  have  sinned  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God  :  being  justified  freely  by  his 
grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ: 
whom  God  hath  set  forth  a  propitiatory  through  faith  in 
his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission 
of  sins  that  are  past,  that  he  might  be  just  and  the  justi- 
fier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus,"  Rom.  vi,  23,  26. 

Thus  we  find  that  between  the  Levitical  sacrifices  and 
the  great  Christian  sacrifice  the  resemblance  is  exact  and 
striking,  and  that  the  latter  answers  to  the  former  as 
the  antitype  to  its  typical  representative.  Whatever 
there  is  of  difl'erence  between  them  consists  chietly  in 
the  superiority  of  the  Christian  atonement,  the  consi- 
deration of  which  will  greatly  confirm  the  truths  which 
have  been  stated. 

The  Jewish  sacrifices  were  but  "a  shadow  of  good 
things  to  come :"  the  Christian  sacrifice  is  the  "  sub- 
stance." Those  were  ofi'ercd  for  inere  ceremonial  or 
civil  purposes  :  this  for  moral  guilt  and  pollution.  Those 
were  mere  animals  :  Christ  "  otiered  up  himself."  It 
was  impossible  that  "  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats 
should  take  away  sins  ;"  but  Jesus  has  "  put  away  sin  by 
the  .sacrifice  of  himself,"  llcl).  x,  4;  i\,  2(5.  The  former 
>'  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  service  perlict  as  per- 
taining to  the  conseiencr,"  Heh.  ix.  0  :  but  •'  tlit>  l)lood  of 
Christ,  who  by  the  eternal  Spirit  olfered  liimself  without 
spot  to  God,  can  purge  our  conscience  from  dead  works 
to  .serve  the  living  God,"  Heb.  ix,  14.  "  The  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling 
the  unclean,  could  only  sanctify  to  the  purifying  of  the 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRISjJ.         175 

flesh,"  Heb.  ix,  13,  and  therefore  only  gained  admission 
into  the  visible  tabernacle  ;  but  we,  "  having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,"  "  have  boldness 
to  enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,"  Heb.  x, 
19,22.  "Every  (Levitical)  priest  stood  daily  in  the 
temple,  offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices,  which  can 
never  take  away  sins.  But  this  man,  after  he  had  offered 
one  sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  God  ;  for  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever 
them  that  are  sanctified."  And,  therefore,  where  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  (such  as  he  has  obtained)  there  is  no  more 
offering  for  sins,"  Heb.  x,  11,  12,  14,  18. 

To  this  statement  Mr.  G.  finds  many  objections,  against 
which  we  must  vindicate  it. 

1.  "  The  term  priest  is  applied  to  Christians  in  gene- 
ral," (vol.  ii,  p.  146,)  who  are  said  to  oflfer  themselves  or 
other  gifts  as  sacrifices.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  149.)  "  If  (these 
terms)  prove  an  atonement,  then  the  atonement  is  in  part 
effected  by  all  Christians."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  146.) 

The  short  answer  is,  that  "  Christians  in  general"  are 
not  denominated  high  priests,  nor  their  sacrifices  propitia- 
tory, or  sacrifices  for  sin.  Their  sacrifices  are  eucharis- 
tic  sacrifices,  or  thank-oflferings.  "  I  beseech  you  by  the 
mercies  of  God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living 
sacrifice,"  Rom.  xii,  1.  Again  :  "  Let  us  offer  the  sacri- 
fice of  praise  to  God  continually,  that  is  the  fruit  of  <\ur 
lips,  giving  thanks  to  his  name,"  Heb.  xiii,  15.  In  off^er- 
ing  these  sacrifices,  "  Christians  in  general"  act  as  priests. 
"  Ye  also  (are)  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices,"  1  Pet.  ii,  5.  The  priesthood  of  "  Christians 
in  general''  is  however  subordinate,  and  acceptable  only 
through  the  peculiar  and  peerless  priesthood  of  Jesus 
Christ.  "  By  him,''  says  the  apostle,  "  let  us  offer  the 
sacrifice  of  praise  to  God,"  Heb.  xiii,  15.  And  again  : 
Our  "  spiritual  sacrifices  are  acceptable  to  God  (only)  by 
Jesus  Christ,"  1  Pet  ii,  5.  We  have  therefore  but  one 
great  -High  Priest,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  "  there  remaineth 
no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,"  since  "  by  one  offering  he  hath 
perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified." 

2.  But  "  Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  made  a 
curse  for  us."  «  A  curse  (says  Mr.  G.)  and  an  accept- 
able  sacrifice  are  totally  inconsistent.     For  to  render  a 


176        PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST. 

sacrifice  acceptable,  it    was    absolutely  requisite  that  it 
should  be  pure."     (Vol.  ii,  pp.  150,  152.) 

Mr.  G.  has  only  taken  for  granted,  that  to  be  "  made  a 
curse,"  and  to  be  impure,  are  identically  the  same.  Does 
he  mean  to  assert  that  Jesus  Christ's  "  hanging  on  a  tree" 
was  a  "  blemish"  on  his  moral  character  ? 

3.  "  Again  :  Christ  was  a  pries^t,  a  victim,  and  the 
mercy  seat.  How  are  these  things  to  be  reconciled,  if 
all  are  to  be  taken  literally?"  (Vol.  ii,  p.  153.) 

He  was  both  the  priest  and  the  victim 'by  "  offering  up 
himself."  ,  But  the  word  iXaarr/piov  (Roni.  lii,  25)  is  not 
properly  "  a  mercy  seat,"  but  a  propitiatory'.  The 
"  mercy  seat"  was  called  ilaaTripiov,  a  propitiatory, 
because  there  the  blood  of  atonement  was  sprinkled,  in 
consequence  of  which  God,  who  was  supposed  to  sit  on 
the  mercy  seat,  was  propitious.  Through  the  atoning 
blood  of  Christ  God  is  propitious  to  us ;  and  therefore 
Christ  also  may  be  called  O.aarijpiov,  a  propitiatory. 
"  God  is  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himselt',  not 
imputing  to  them  their  trespasses." 

Before  this  subject  is  dismissed,  a  train  of  important 
reflections,  arising  out  of  the  preceding  observations, 
demand  the  reader's  most  serious  attention.  The  immo- 
lation of  victims  for  the  expiation  of  sin  is  justly  supposed 
to  have  been  originally  of  divine  institution.  When  God 
taifght  our  first  parents  to  clothe  tliemselves  with  the  skins 
of  beasts,  he  undoubtedly  taught  them  first  to  slay  those 
beasts  that  were  to  be  flayed,  certainly  not  for  food,  and 
therefore  most  probably  in  sacrifice.  The  proof  that  Abel 
oftercd  a  sacrifice  to  God  is,  however,  ^nuch  more  clear 
and  positive  ;  and  the  respect  whicli  God  had  to  his  ofler- 
ing  makes  it  nearly  certain  that  it  was  presented  according 
to  a  previous  divine  appoiiitiiient.  Abel  could  not  know 
that  the  life  of  an  unoflVnding  animal  would  be  an  accept- 
able offering,  so  as  to  offer  it,  as  it  is  said  he  did.  by  faitii, 
unless  he  had  first  received  some  intimation  of  it  from 
above  :  for  "  faith  cometli  by  hearing,  and  hearinir  by  the 
word  of  God,"  Rom.  x,  17.  In  the  days  of  Noah,  it  is 
still  more  obvious  from  tlic  distinction  then  observed  be- 
tween  clean  and  unclean  animals,  the  more  ample  provision 
which  was  made  of  the  former,  the  offering  wiiich  he 
made  of  them,  and  the  grateful  acceptance  of  that  offer- 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.        177 

ing — that  sacrifice  made  an  important  part  of  the  institu- 
tion  of  rehgious  worship.  (Gen.  vii  and  viii.)  The  sacri- 
fices which  Abram  ofl'ered  were,  we  are  assured,  of  divine 
appointment.  (Gen.  xv,  9.)  When  the  wrath  of  God  was 
kindled  against  tlie  friends  of  Job,  God  said,  "Take  unto 
you  seven  bullocks  and  seven  rams,  and  go  to  my  servant 
Job,  and  offer  up  for  yourselves  a  burnt-offering ;  and  my 
servant  Job  shall  pray  for  you,  for  him  will  I  accept,  lest 
I  deal  with  you  after  your  folly,"  Job  xlii,  1.*  These 
divine  institutions  were,  under  the  Levitical  dispensation, 
made,  by  the  same  authority,  the  basis  of  a  more  extended 
and  particular  sacrificial  institution,  which  agreed  in  every 
respect  with  that  which  preceded,  both  as  to  the  quality 
of  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered,  and  the  manner  of  offering 
them.  This  agreement  is  a  confirmation  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  former.  The  extension  of  the  law  of 
sacrifice,  we  learn  from  the  inspired  writers,  was  intended 
to  be  a  more  perfect  figure  of  good  things  to  come.  No 
human  invention,  no  common  transaction  of  mankind  with 
each  other,  was  sufficient  to  elucidate  the  method  of  salva- 
tion by  Jesus  Christ.  The  relations  of  mankind  to  each 
other  differ  widely  from  the  relations  which  exist  between 
God  and  his  creatures.  Nothing,  therefore,  but  transac 
tions  between  God  and  men,  can  properly  illustrate  trans- 
actions  between  God  and  men.  Hence  He,  who  alone 
was  acquainted  with  "  the  mystery  of  his  will  which  he 
had  purposed  in  himself,"  adapted  all  the  circumstances 
of  these  institutions  to  this  one  great  purpose.  Hence 
the  apostles,  when  treating  on  the  grand  topic  of  their 
ministry,  "  Christ  crucified,"  derive  their  principal  ideas 
and  phrases  from  this  preceding  economy,  and  make  the 
institutions  of  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  ages  a  key  to 
the  new  dispensation.  The  sacrifices  for  sin,  which  were 
offered  from  the  primitive  times  according  to  the  divine 
appointment,  and  were  regulated  by  the  wisdom  of  Him 
who  knew  the  end  from  the  beginning,  are  the  volume 
from  wljich  they  derive  their  most  luminous  lessons  of 
instruction.  And  what  shall  we  infer  from  this,  but  that 
God  has  intended,  by  the  whole  sacrificial  code,  to  give  to 
mankind  the  most  just  and  the  most  appropriate  ideas  of 

» A  most  important  illustration  of  the  design  of  sacrifices,  as  well 
as  of  their  divine  institution. 


178        PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

the  sacrifice  and  propitiation  of  "  the  Lamb  of  God,  who 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ;" — that  his  own  previous 
institutions  are  an  infalUhle  guide  to  our  understanding ; 
and  that  every  allusion  which  is  made  to  mere  human 
affairs  is  very  imperfect,  and  neither  can  be,  nor  ought  to 
be  applied  in  the  same  unqualified  manner,  for  the  illus- 
tration of  the  objects  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

The  divine  Author  of  revelation  has,  however,  been 
pleased,  for  our  instruction  on  this  most  important  subject, 
to  introduce  allusions  to  the  ordinary  transactions  of  man- 
kind with  each  other.  Among  these  the  terms  of  eman- 
cipation, as  redemption,  ransom,  with  others  of  the  same 
class,  hold  a  conspicuous  place. 

With  the  Socinians  it  is  a  common  practice  to  insist 
that  scriptural  terms  be  always  interpreted  in  the  same 
sense ;  and,  while  they  themselves  are  often  completely  at 
a  loss  to  affix  to  a  word  such  a  meaning  as  will  admit  of 
a  universal  application,  they  are  perpetually  bawling  for 
consistency.  They  have,  however,  priidcnce  enough  not 
to  try  whether  the  meaning  which  they  prefer  will  bear 
them  out  in  their  imaginary  consistency,  without  leading 
them  into  the  most  glaring  absurdities. 

That  the  terms  already  alluded  to  are  sometimes  used 
by  the  sacred  writers  improperly,  we  do  not  deny.  To 
redeem,  or  to  ransom,  is,  as  Mr.  G.  says,  "  to  buy  again." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  136.)  Now  the  proper  mean  of  redemption 
is  a  price,  and  that  price  is  a  ransom.  But  the  Scrip- 
tures sometimes  speak  of  a  thing  being  "  bought  without 
money,  and  without  price;"  and  of  a  people  being  "  re- 
deemed without  money."  Thus  God  paid  no  price  for 
the  redemption  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt.  Every  man  of 
common  sense  sees  that  this  is  what  rhetoricians  call. 
in  their  technical  sense,  an  impropriety  in  speech  ; 
and  that  the  impropriety  is  marked  by  the  terms  "  without 
price."  Mr.  G.  takes  for  granted  that  the  same  terms 
must  always  be  used  in  the  same  improper  sense.  If  it 
should  appear,  however,  that  the  Scriptures  often  make 
specific  mention  of  the  price  by  whicli  redemption  is  ac- 
complished, it  will  be  obvious  that  the  terms  in  question 
are  often  used  properly  :  and  if  this  proper  way  of  speak- 
ing  be  found  to  be  applied  to  our  redemption  by  Jesus 
Christ,  it    will    follow    that    the   scriptural  idea  of  our 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS   CHRIST.         179 

redemption  by  his  death  is  that  of  a  redemption  by 
price. 

The  word  redemption  is  often  used  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  such  a  manner  as  can  only  be  interpreted  of  a 
price  paid  :  and  sometimes  that  price  is  particularly  spe- 
cified. For  instance  : — "  If  thy  brother  sell  himself  unto 
the  stranger,  after  that  he  is  sold  he  may  be  redeemed 
again ;  one  of  his  brethren  may  redeem  him.  And  he 
shall  reckon  with  him  that  bought  him,  from  the  year  that 
he  was  sold  to  him,  unto  the  year  of  jubilee  :  and  the 
price  of  his  sale  shall  be  according  unto  the  number  of 
years.  If  there  be  yet  many  years  behind,  according  to 
them  he  shall  give  again  the  price  of  his  redemption,  out 
of  the  money  that  he  was  bought  for."  (See  Lev.  xxv, 
47-52  ;  Exod.  xiii,  13,  15 ;  Lev.  xxv,  25  ;  xxvii,  13,  15, 
20  ;  Ruth  iv,  4  ;  Num.  xviii,  15,  &c.,  &c.) 

The  word  ransom  is  used  in  the  same  manner  :  "  If 
there  be  laid  on  him  a  sum  of  money,  then  he  shall  give 
for  the  ransom  of  his  life  whatsoever  is  laid  upon  him,'' 
Exod.  xxi,  30  ;  see  also  Psalm  xlix,  7  ;  Prov.  vi,  35  ; 
xxi,  18  ;  Isa.  xliii,  3,  &c.,  &c. 

The  use  made  of  these  terms  when,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, they  are  applied  to  the  death  of  Christ,  is  exactly 
similar  to  that  already  examined.  It  is  true  indeed  that 
the  word  redemption  is  sometimes  used  in  a  different 
sense.  Thus  we  read  of  "  the  redemption  of  our  body," 
Rom.  viii,  23  ;  of  "the  day  of  redemption,''  Eph.  iv,  30  ; 
and  of  "  Christ  who,  of  God,  is  made  unto  us  redemption," 
1  Cor.  i,  30.  In  these  passages  no  price  is  alluded  to  : 
our  bodies  especially  are  said  to  be  "  redeemed  from 
death,"  to  be  "  ransomed  from  the  power  of  the  grave"  by 
the  power  of  Him  who  "  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  to  him- 
self."    But  not  without  a  previous  redemption  by  price. 

This  last  is  most  frequently  meant  when  we  are  said  to 
be  redeemed  by  Jesus  Christ.  Thus  :  "  Ye  are  bought 
with  a  price,"  1  Cor.  vi,  20.  "  Forasmuch  as  ye  know 
that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  sil- 
ver and*gold,  from  your  vain  conversation,  but  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot,"  1  Pet  i,  18,  19.  "  Who  gave  himself  (as 
the  price)  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniqui- 
ty," Tit.  ii,  14.     "  Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed 


180         PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CUBIST. 

US  to  God  by  thy  blood,"  Rev.  v,  9.  "  We  have  redenip- 
tion  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  1  Col.  i, 
14 ;  Eph.  i,  7.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  these  pas- 
sages we  are  redeemed,  or  brought  back,  by  a  price ;  that 
price  is  the  precious  blood  of  Christ ;  and  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  is  the  efiect  of  our  being  so  redeemed. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  ransom  is  the  same  as  a 
price  of  redemption,  and  is  applied  to  the  death  of  Christ 
precisely  as  we  apply  it  to  the  price  paid  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  a  captive.  '•  The  Son  of  man  came,  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ran- 
som for  many,"  Matt,  xx,  28  ;  Mark  x,  45.  "  There  is 
one  mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus  ; 
•who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,"  1  Tim.  ii,  6,  6. 

The  second  order  of  terms  taken  from  the  transactions 
of  mankind  with  each  other,  for  the  illustration  of  this 
subject,  are  judicial.  In  the  examination  of  these  Mr. 
G.  will  render  us  some  assistance. 

"  The  Almighty  is  described  as  a  judge,  taking  cog- 
nizance of  the  behaviour  of  mankind,  and  inquiring  iiow 
far  their  actions  had  accorded  with  the  laws  which  he  had 
given  to  man.  The  trial  could  not  but  have  the  most 
unfavourable  issue.''  (Vol.  ii,  p.  166.)  '*  What  things 
soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are  under  the 
law ;  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world 
may  become  guilty  before  God.  (Therefore  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law  no  flesh  is  justified  in  his  sight  :  for  by  the  law 
is  the  knowledge  of  sin,")  Rum.  iii,  19,  20.  But  the  sin- 
ner, whose  "  moutii  is  stopped,"  and  who  cannot  put  in  a 
plea  of  "  not  guilty,''  "has  an  advocate  with  the  Father, 
Jesus  Christ  the  righteous,"  l.lohnii/1.  An  advocate, 
as  Mr.  G.  grants,  is  one  who  *'  makes  intercession."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  169.)  As  an  advocate,  then,  Jesus  Christ  ''ever 
liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us,"  Heb.  vii,  25.  An 
advocate  or  interces.sor  is  one  who  pleads  the  cause  of  an- 
other. Here  again  Mr.  G.  comes  forward,  in  his  usual 
style,  demanding  the  same  unilorm  ap|»lication  of  the  same 
terms.  According  to  him,  because  God  is  .sometimes  said 
to  plead  in  behalf  of  a  people  by  delivering  them,  or 
against  them  by  punisliing  them,  the  same  expressions 
must  always  be  interpreted  in  the  .same  manner.  (Vol.  ii. 
p.  170.)     It  has  been  often  repeated  that  the  occasional 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.         181 

improper  use  of  any  phrase  is  no  argument  that  that  phrase 
is  always  used  in  the  same  sense.  When  Mr.  G.  has  put 
his  own  interpretation  on  the  passages  which  he  has  cited, 
and  shown  how  "  the  Ahnighty  is  spoken  of  as  pleading  a 
cause,"  (vol.  ii,  p.  170,)  he  will  not  be  able  to  adapt  the 
same  interpretation  to  the  following  passages  : — "  O  that 
one  might  plead  for  a  man  with  God,  as  a  man  pleadeth 
for  his  neighbour."  "  Hear  now  my  reasoning,  and 
hearken  to  the  pleadings  of  my  lips,"  Job  xiii,  6  ;  xvi, 
21.  Nor  will  his  explication  of  the  pleadings  of  the 
Almighty  serve  to  neutralize  the  intercession  of  Christ, 
our  advocate  with  the  Father.  In  vain  does  he  inform  us 
that  an  "  intercessor  is  merely  one  who  acts  as  a  medium 
between  two  parties :"  or  that  the  word  intercession  "  is 
synonymous  with  mediation."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  170.)  All 
this  may  be  true  :  but  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
exercised  not  only  with  men,  in  behalf  of  God,  but  with 
God,  in  behalf  of  men.  He  is  our  advocate  with  the 
Father.  He  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us.  And 
will  any  Socinian  be  hardy  enough  to  speak  out,  and  to 
say  that  as  God  Almighty  pleads  for  his  people,  by  execut- 
ing judgment  on  their  enemies  with  whom  he  pleads,  so 
Jesus  Christ  pleads  for  a  sinner  by  executing  judgment  on 
him  with  whom  he  pleads  ?  One  would  hope  that  even  a 
"  rational  divine"  should  shrink  from  such  blasphemy. 

But  if  "  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous"  be  properly  our 
"  advocate  with  the  Father,"  he  must  have  some  plea  to 
put  in  in  behalf  of  him  whose  "  mouth  is  stopped"  and 
who  stands  "  guilty  before  God."  He  cannot  advocate 
his  cause  by  pleading  his  innocence.  What  he  does  plead, 
we  learn  from  the  authority  by  which  we  are  assured  that 
he  is  our  advocate.  "  If  any  man  sin  we  have  an  advo- 
cate with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  :  and  he 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  :  and  not  for  ours  only,  but 
also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,"  1  John  ii,  1,  2. 
"  There  is  one  mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  ;  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,"  1  Tim. 
ii,  5,  6.  *•"  For  this  cause  he  is  the  mediator  of  the  new 
covenant,  that  by  means  of  death  for  the  redemption  of 
the  transgressions  under  the  first  covenant,  they  which 
are  called  might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inherit- 
ance,"  Heb.  ix,  15.  "  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost 
16 


182         PROPlflATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

them  that  come  to  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  hveth  to 
make  intercession  for  them.  For  such  a  High  Priest 
(an  Intercessor)  became  us — who  needeth  not  daily  to 
offer  up  sacrifice — for  this  he  did  once  when  he  offered  up 
himself,"  Heb.  vii,  25-27.  Thus  we  see  that  the  media- 
lion,  advocation,  or  intercession  of  Christ  is  uniformly 
connected  with  the  sacrifice  which  he  has  offered,  the 
propitiation  which  he  has  made,  the  ransom  which  he 
has  paid  :  in  a  word,  with  his  death  for  our  transgressions. 
This,  therefore,  is  the  ground  of  his  intercession,  and  the 
plea  which  he  urges  as  our  advocate.  "  He  bare  the  sins 
of  many,  and  makes  intercession  for  the  transgressors," 
Isa.  liii,  12. 

This  doctrine  is  best  illustrated  by  the  Levitical  law, 
under  which  "  the  high  priest  alone  (as  the  advocate  of 
the  people)  entered  into  the  second  tabernacle  once  every 
year,  not  without  Wood,  which  he  offered  for  the  errors 
of  the  people,"  Heb.  ix,  7. 

In  this  light  we  are  to  consider  those  scriptural 
expressions  concerning  Christ  dying  for  our  sins.* 
"  The  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  Rom.  vi,  23.  That  punish- 
ment he  is  represented  as  having  borne  for  us.  "  Surely 
he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows  :  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions  ;  he  was  bruised  for  our 
iniquities:  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him. 
and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep 
have  gone  astray,  and  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way  ; 
and  the  Lord  hath  laid  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all. 
For  the  transgressions  of  my  people  was  he  stricken.   He 

♦  We  liave  luit  quoted  here  those  scriptures  which  speak  of  the 
Saviour  dying  for  men.  Such  are  Rom.  v,  6,  H;  xW,  15  ;  1  Cor.  viii, 
11 ;  2  Cor.  V,  15;  Gal.  ii,  20;  1  Tliess.  v,  10.  The  reason  for  this 
omi.ssion  is,  that  these  script itrcs  come  under  the  class  of  the  terms 
of  emancipation.  He  "ijavc  himself  for  us,  that  he  mii,'ht  redeom 
us."  "  Chri.sl  hath  redeemed  us  Irom  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  n  cur.se  (dying  a  deaiii  pronoimced  accursed)  for  us  ;  for  it  is 
written,  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree,"  Gal.  iii,  13. 
He  f,'avo  "  his  life  a  ran.som  for  many."  In  all  these  pa.ssages,  there- 
fore, Christ  is  considered  as  having  given  himself  a  price  for  us. 
The  scriptures  quoted  above  belong  to  the  class  of  judicial  terms. 
In  them  .Icsus  Christ  is  conMcicrcd  a^  having  borne  a  penally  in  lieu 
of  that  which  mankind  have  incurred.  The  ideal  meaning  of 
these  two  classes  of  terms  is  therefore  somewhat  different,  though 
their  doctrinal  meaaing  is  precisely  the  same. 


PROriTIATOKY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.       183l 

hath  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death  :  and  he  bare  the  sin 
of  many,  and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors," 
Isa.  Hii,  4-12.  "  Who  was  delivered  (viz.,  to  death)  for 
our  offences,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification," 
Rom.  iv,  25.  "  Who  gave  himself  for  our  sins,"  Gal.  i,  4. 
"  For  Christ  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the 
unjust,"  1  Pet.  iii,  18.  "  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins. 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,"  1  Pet.  ii,  24. 

Such  is  the  plea  of  our  "  advocate  with  the  Father :" 
and  when  the  sinner  "  comes  to  God  through  him  ;''  who, 
"  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession"  for  him, — when  he 
takes  hold  on  the  plea  of  his  advocate, — ^he  is  justified. 
That  is,  says  Mr.  G.,  "  all  his  previous  faults  are  for- 
given.'' (Vol.  ii,  p.  167.)  The  same  act  of  God  being 
called  justification,  when  considered  as  the  act  of  a  right- 
eous Judge  ;  and  pardon,  when  considered  as  the  act  of  a 
gracious  Father.  That,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  he 
is  justified  or  forgiven  on  the  plea  of  Jesus  Christ,  his 
advocate,  the  following  passages  will  testify  : — "  By  his 
knowledge  (the  knowledge  of  himself)  shall  my  righteous 
servant  justify  many,  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities," 
Isa.  liii,  11.  "  All  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God  :  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ :  whom  God  hath 
set  forth  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,"  Rom. 
iii,  23-25.  "  Who  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and 
raised  again  for  our  justification,"  Rom.  iv,  25.  "  Being 
now  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath 
through  him,"  Rom.  v,  9. 

As  this  is  the  plea  on  which  a  sinner  is  justified,  it  is 
the  subject  of  his  subsequent  glorying.  He  can  now  say, 
"  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect  ? 
It  is  God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ? 
It  is  Christ  that  died  :  yea,  rather,  that  is  risen  again : 
who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God  :  who  also  raaketh 
intercession  for  us,"   Rom.  viii,  33,  34. 

Having  taken  a  general  survey  of  what  the  sacred 
writers  ifave  taught,  we  now  examine  what  weight  there 
is  in  Mr.  G.'s  objections. 

1.  "He  insinuates  that  the  prophets,  John  the  Baptist, 
our  Lord,  and  his  apostles,  were  silent  on  this  subject." 
(Vol.  ii,  pp.  171,  175,  180.) 


184       PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

The  whole  strength  of  this  argument  consists  in  Mr. 
G.'s  having  substituted  the  phraseology  of  theologists  for 
that  of  the  Scriptures.  He  requires  us  to  prove  that  the 
sacred  writers  speak  of  Jesus  Christ  as  "  satisfying  infinite 
justice,  or  appeasing  the  wrath  of  an  offended  God."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  171.)  We  here  enter  our  protest  against  this  per- 
petual  shifting  of  the  terms.  The  question  to  be  discussed 
is,  whether  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  be  propitiatory  ?  If  this 
should  be  decided  in  the  affirmative,  we  may  leave  to 
speculative  men  to  inquire  whether  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice can  in  any  sense  be  said  to  "  satisfy  infinite  justice," 
or  to  '*  appease  the  wrath  of  an  offended  God  ?"  But 
however  this  last  question  may  be  decided,  the  first  is  not 
at  all  affected  by  the  decision.  To  give  solidity  to  his 
reasoning,  Mr.  G.  ought  to  prove  that  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament  do  not  speak  of  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  a  sacrifice  for  sins,  a  ransom  or  price  of  redemption, 
and  the  plea  on  which  a  sinner  is  justified.  Hie  labor  ; 
hoc  opus  est !  The  reader  will  scarcely  need  to  be  inform, 
ed  that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  Socinian  magic. 

We  have  seen  already  that  the  sacrificial  code  of  the 
Levitical  institution  is  replete  with  types  of  the  sacrifice 
for  sin  which  Jesus  Christ  should  offer.  The  fifty-third 
chapter  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  almost  the  whole  of 
which  we  have  already  quoted,  speaks  of  the  death  of 
Christ  as  the  consequence  of  our  iniquity  being  laid  on 
him,  as  the  chastisement  of  our  peace,  as  an  offering  for 
our  sin,  and  as  the  plea  on  whicii  we  are  justified.  John 
the  Baptist,  with  an  obvious  alhision  to  tlic  lamb  oflered 
as  a  sin-offering,  (Lev.  iv,  32,)  called  the  attention  of  the 
Jews  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  "  the  Lamb  df  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  John  i,  29.  Our  Lord  said, 
"  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many,"  Matt,  xx,  28.  "  The  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my 
flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world,"  John  vi, 
51.  "  This  is  (the  sign  of)  my  blood  of  the  new  covenant, 
which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  Matt. 
xxvi,  28  :  and  before  he  was  parted  from  "  his  apostles," 
he  said  unto  them,  "  Tliese  are  the  words  which  I  spake 
unto  you,  that  all  tilings  must  be  fulfilled  wiiich  were 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  tlie  prophets,  and  in 
the  Psalms  concerning  me,  (the  things  to  which  we  have 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.        185 

now  alluded.)  Then  opened  he  their  understanding  that 
they  might  understand  the  Scriptures,  (which  before  they 
did  not  understand,)  and  said  unto  them.  Thus  it  is  writ- 
ten, and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from 
the  dead  the  third  day  ;  and  that  repentance  and  remis- 
sion  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name,"  Luke  xxiv, 
44-47.  Thus  instructed,  and  thus  understanding  the 
Scriptures,  the  apostles  went  forth  and  preached  forgive- 
ness  of  sins  through  him.  "  Repent,"  said  they,  "  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
(be  '  baptized  unto  his  death,'  Rom.  vi,  3,)  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  Acts  ii,  38.  "  They  that  dwell  at  Jerusa- 
lem,  desired  Pilate  that  he  should  be  slain.  And  when 
they  had  fulfilled  all  that  was  written  of  him,  (see  Isa.  liii,) 
they  laid  him  in  a  sepulchre.  But  God  raised  him  from 
the  dead.  Be  it  known  unto  you,  therefore,  that  through 
this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  : 
and  by  him  all  that  beUeve  are  justified  from  all  things, 
from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses," 
Acts  xiii,  27-30,  38,  39.  When  Philip  joined  the  Ethio- 
pian eunuch,  and  found  him  reading  the  fifty-third  of 
Isaiah,  he  "  began  at  the  same  scripture,  and  preached 
unto  him  Jesus,"  Acts  viii,  35.  This  subject,  however, 
like  every  other  Christian  doctrine,  is  not  so  fully  recorded 
in  that  book,  which  contains  rather  the  acts  than  the  doc- 
trine of  the  apostles,  as  in  their  epistles,  from  Avhich  we 
have  already  adduced  various  specimens.* 

2.  Mr.  G.  thinks  there  are  "  two  main  points  upon 
which  this  question  rests.  First,  Do  you  believe  that  a 
great  and  material  change  took  place  in  the  nature,  attri- 
butes,  character,  of  the  One  Supreme  ?"  (Vol.  ii,  p.  158.) 
No :  we  do  not.  We  believe  only  that  change  was 
wrought  by  the  atonement,  which  Mr.  G.  attributes  to  the 
mere  repentence  of  a  criminal ;  and  that  God,  having  set 
forth  Christ  a  propitiatory  through  faith  in  his  blood,  could 
be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus. 
Second,  "  Do  you  believe  that  this  change  took  place  in 

*  Mr.  G.,  as  usual,  has  referred  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  who  "  did 
not  even  expect  asuflering  Messiah."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  174.)  This  is  not 
the  only- proof  that  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  is  the  standard  of  Soci- 
nian  faith.  He  is  perfectly  welcome  to  all  the  support  which  he  can 
derive  from  their  testimony. 

16* 


186        PROPITIATOUY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

consequence  of  the  death  of  a  God  ?"  (Vol.  ii,  p.  158.) 
No.  We  beheve  that  "  God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  and  Tvepi  afiapnag,  a  sacrifice  for 
sin,*  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh,"  Rom.  viii,  3  :  tliat  the 
Christian  atonement  was  made  by  "  the  oflering  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ."  From  these  "two  main  points, 
upon  which  (according  to  Mr.  G.)  this  question  rests,"  it 
appears  that  he  is  only  pursuing  a  phantom,  the  creature 
of  his  own  imagination,  and  controverting  a  doctrine  which 
no  man  in  his  sober  senses  believes. 

If  that  was  the  case,  says  Mr.  G.,  "then  it  could  have 
been  a  man  only  who  accomplished  the  atonement."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  191.)  We  answer  :  The  human  nature  was  the 
sacrifice  which  "  by  the  eternal  Spirit  he  offered  without 
spot  to  God  :"  and,  therefore,  "his  blood  can  purge  our 
consciences  from  dead  works."  "  God  (therefore)  was 
in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  not  imputing  to 
them  their  trespasses." 

.3.  You  must,  however,  says  Mr.  G.,  be  "  reduced  to 
the  following  dilemma  ;  either  that  the  mercy  of  the 
Father  was  not  equal  to  the  mercy  of  the  Son,  or  that  the 
justice  of  the  Son  was  not  equal  to  the  justice  of  the 
Father."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  188.) 

Before  we  answer  this  objection,  it  is  necessary  to 
understand  an  obvious  and  common  distinction  with 
respect  to  divine  justice.  "  Justice,  as  it  respects  moral 
character,  has  with  propriety  been  distinguished  into  dis- 
tributive  and  public."  As  we  may  hereafter  find  it  neces- 
sary to  recur  to  this  distinction,  it  will  be  well  to  explain 
what  we  mean  by  it.  "Distributive  justice  consists  in  a 
due  administration  of  rewards  and  punishments  according 
to  personal  desert.  Public  justice  has  respect  to  the  well 
being  of  the  whole.  Its  province  is  to  guard  the  rigtits  of 
moral  government,  and  take  care  tliat  the  divine  authority 
be  not  impaired."  {Jcrram  on  the  Alontnirnt.  let.  iv. 
p.  82.) 

Any  doctrine  may  be  made  to  appear  alwurd  by  being 
misrepresented.     According  to    Mr.  G.'s  representation 

•  So  the  LXX.  use  that  phra.so  in  Isa.  liii,  10  ;  and  so  the  apwstle 
uses  it  in  Heb.  x,6.  OXoxntTti/iorfl  Kaiirrpi  a/mpr lacovKtvi^oKt}. 
•Of  which  our  translators  render,  "  In  bumt-oflerings  and  sacrifices 
for  sins  thou  liast  ha'.l  no  pleasure." 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.        187 

of  our  doctrine,  there  are  two  Gods  :  the  Father  fttid  the 
Son.  The  Father  is  just  and  unmerciful.  The  Son  iS 
merciful,  but  regardless  of  justice.  The  Son,  one  of  these 
Gods,  sacrifices  his  divinity  to  the  justice  of  the  Father, 
the  other  God.  Appeased  by  this  sacrifice,  the  Father 
forgives  the  criminal,  not  in  mercy,  but  in  mere  justice. 
This  may  be  absurd  enough  !  But  whose  doctrine  is  it  ? 
Not  ours.  Let  the  scriptural  doctrine  be  stated,  and  Mr. 
G.'s  dilemma  vanishes.  "  God  so  loved  the  world  (was 
so  merciful)  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  that 
human  person,  "  in  whom  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the 
godhead."  This  human  person,  "  by  the  eternal  Spirit," 
which  dwelt  in  him  without  measure,  "  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God,"  "  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice,  for  a 
sweet-smelling  savour."  By  this  display  of  public  justice 
in  "  condemning  sin  in  the  flesh,"  this  human  person  is 
"  set  forth  a  propitiatory  through  faith  in  his  blood,  ta 
declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are 
past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God ;  to  declare  his 
righeousness,  that  he  might  be  just,  as  to  his  public  charac- 
ter, and  yet  surrender  the  claims  of  distributive  justice. as 
the  (merciful)  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus." 
Thus  the  mercy  of  the  Father  is  exercised,  and  distributive 
justice  is  waived,  without  any  infringement  on  public  jus- 
tice.  The  Father  is  merciful  in  providing  and  accepting 
the  sacrifice,  and  just  in  requiring  it.  The  Son  is  merci- 
ful in  offering  the  sacrifice  in  our  behalf;  and  just  in  his 
concern  for  the  maintenance  of  public  justice,  in  thus  pre- 
serving the  sanction  of  the  righteous  law  inviolate,  in 
"  magnifying  the  law,  and  making  it  honourable."  Where 
is  now  this  formidable  dilemma  ?  If  Mr.  G.  still  think 
that,  on  our  principles,  the  Son  as  well  as  the  Father,  if  he 
were  just,  must  have  demanded  a  similar  atonement,  the 
opinion  can  only  arise  out  of  the  same  mistaken  notion  of 
our  real  principles.  It  was  the  divine,  and  not  the  human 
nature,  which  was  to  be  propitiated. 

4.  "  Will  it  be  said  that  God  himself  provided  the 
atonemeat  to  be  made  to  himself?  Then  it  renders  the 
whole  doctrine  a  complete  nullit3\  ^^  "^  person  owe  me  a 
sum  of  money,  is  it  not  the  same  thing  whether  I  remit  the 
debt  at  once,  or  supply  another  person  with  money  to  pay 
me  again  in  the  debtor's  name  ?     If  satisfaction  be  made 


188       PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

to  any  purpose,  it  must  be  in  some  manner  in  which  the 
offender  may  be  a  sufferer,  and  the  offended  person  a 
gainer."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  191.) 

This  argument  is  rather  specious  than  soHd,  and  all  its 
apparent  weight  arises  partly  out  of  the  confusion  of  the 
various  terms  that  are  used,  and  partly  out  of  the  change 
of  their  application.  (1.)  Mr.  G.  sets  out  with  speaking 
of  an  atonement,  and  then  changes  that  term  for  the  word 
satisfaction.  Now  many  persons  use  the  word  atonement 
in  its  proper  sense,  who  do  not  think  that  the  term  satis- 
faction  is  perfectly  synonymous.  Mr.  G.  should  remem- 
ber that,  like  Dr.  Priestley,  he  undertakes  to  controvert 
"  the  whole  doctrine  of  atonement,  with  every  modifica- 
tion of  it.  (Hist,  of  Corrup.,  \ol.  i,  p.  Ib4.)  Whatever 
he  may  have  to  urge  against  the  term  satisfaction  will, 
therefore,  make  nothing  against  a  proper  atonement  or 
propitiation.  (2.)  He  uses  the  term  satisfaction  in  a 
sense  M'hich  those  judicious  men,  who  think  proper  to 
make  use  of  it,  will  not  acknowledge.  And  tlien  (3.)  To 
make  out  his  objection,  he  changes  the  sense  of  the  term, 
from  the  satisfaction  required  by  a  moral  governor,  the 
exaction  of  a  legal  penalty,  to  that  required  by  a  creditor, 
the  payment  of  a  debt.  Thus  tiiis  unscriptural  word  has, 
in  one  argument,  no  less  than  three  different  applications, 
not  one  of  which  we  should  admit,  if  we  admit  the  use  of 
the  term. 

Now  as  (1.)  this  term  is  not  scriptural,  and  (2.)  it  is  apt 
to  be  so  variously  and  improperly  applied,  we  shall  not 
contend  a  moment  for  the  use  of  it.  But  as  it  may  still  be 
objected  that  we  retain  the  idea,  while  we  decline  to  con- 
tend for  the  word,  we  will  explain  ou/selves.  We  have 
already  distinguished  between  the  several  classes  of  terms 
by  which  the  design  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  illustrated  in 
tbe  New  Testament;  we  will  now  inquire  to  which  of 
those  classes  the  idea  of  satisfaction  may  be  attached,  if 
attached  at  all ;   and  in  what  sense  it  is  attached. 

(1.)  We  conceive  that  it  cannot  properly  be  attached 
to  the  "  terms  of  emancijiation."  It  is  true,  when  Jesus 
Christ  is  said  to  "  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many,"  the 
idea  conveyed  by  those  terms  is  that  of  the  redeniption  of 
a  captive  who  has  been  sold  or  imprisoned  for  his  debt. 
It  is,  therefore,  only  anotlicr  way  of  speaking  of  the  pay- 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.        189 

ment  of  a  debt.  Now  the  payment  of  a  debt  is  a  satis- 
faction  to  the  creditor.  We  do  not  suppose,  however,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  is  represented  as  a  ransom,  because 
it  was  positively  the  payment  of  a  debt ;  but  because  it  ^ 
answers  a  purpose,  with  respect  to  the  sinner,  similar  to 
that  which  the  payment  of  a  debt  answers  with  respect  to 
the  debtor.  The  debtor  is  acquitted  in  the  one  case  ;  the 
sinner  in  the  other.  Beyond  this  point  the  analogy 
vanishes.  Hence  the  Scriptures  nowhere  say  that  Christ 
gave  himself  a  ransom  to  God :  but  that  he  gave  himself 
a  ransom  for  us  ;  and  that  "  he  gave  himself  an  offering 
and  a  sacrifice  to  God." 

(2.)  We  conceive  that  it  cannot  properly  be  attached 
to  the  sacrificial  terms.  On  making  the  experiment  we 
find  that  we  cannot  attach  it  naturally  and  easily  without 
adopting 

(3.)  The  judicial  terms,  to  which,  therefore,  if  at  all, 
it  must  be  attached.  We  have  already  observed  that  jus- 
tice,  is  either  distributive  or  public.  The  first  question 
then  is,  Are  we  to  regard  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  penalty 
exacted  by  distributive  or  public  justice  ?  Certainly  not 
by  distributive  justice,  because  [1.]  the  penalty  exacted 
by  distributive  justice  is  the  death  of  the  offender ;  and 
[2.]  the  design  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  to  obtain  mercy 
for  the  offender  ;  or  in  other  words,  to  provide  that  distri- 
butive justice  may  relinquish  its  demands.  It  must  then  be 
public  justice  which  exacted  the  penalty,  and  on  account 
of  which  he  "was  delivered  for  our  offences."  "Public 
justice  has  regard  to  the  well  being  of  the  whole.  Its 
province  is  to  guard  the  rights  of  moral  government,  and 
to  take  care  that  the  divine  authority  be  not  impaired." 
(See  p.  186.)  To  secure  this  end  of  public  justice,  "  God 
hath  set  forth  Jesus  Christ  a  propitiation  through  faith  in 
his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remis- 
sion  of  sins  through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  that  he 
might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in 
Jesus." 

If  the  feader  think  that  that  which  supports  the  autho- 
rity of  moral  government,  when  distributive  justice  is  sur- 
rendered,  and  thereby  answers  the  demands  of  public  jus- 
tice,  be  a  satisfaction  to  public  justice,  he  will  not  ask  Mr. 
G.'s  leave  to  call  it  so.     But  we  choose  rather  to  abide 


190        PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

by  the  scriptural  terms,  which  are  not  liable  to  the  same 
exceptions  as  those  which  arc  of  human  invention. 

After  this  explanation  we  contend  that,  although  to 
"  supply  another  person  with  money  to  pay  me  again  in  the 
debtor's  name,"  is  much  the  same  thing  as  to  "  remit  the 
debt  at  once  ;  for  God  to  provide  that  public  justice 
may  not  be  impaired  by  the  surrender  of  distributive  jus- 
tice,  is  not  the  same  thing  as  to  remit  the  claims  of  distri- 
butive justice  without  such  a  provision.  In  the  one  case 
the  tone  of  authority  is  relaxed ;  in  the  other  it  is  strictly 
maintained.  Or,  to  return  to  the  point  from  which  Mr. 
G.  set  out,  and  to  which  he  ought  to  have  adhered  :  the 
end  of  an  atonement  may  equally  be  answered,  whoever 
may  provide  the  sacrifice.  Thus  all  the  sin-offerings 
which,  under  the  Old  Testament,  were  offered  to  God  as 
atonements  for  sin,  were  provided  by  Him  to  whom  they 
were  offered,  whose  are  "  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand 
hills." 

5.  "  But  this  doctrine  converts  justice  into  vengeance. 
It  first  plunges  its  sword  into  the  soul  of  the  innocent  ;  it 
afterwards  pursues  multitudes  of  those  whose  punishment 
he  bore,  and  relentlessly  plunges  them  into  the  flames  of 
hell  liecause  they  cannot  satisfy  its  demands,  which  were 
all  satisfied  by  his  suffering  in  their  stead."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
184.)  This  objection  is  levelled,  point  blank,  at  the  doc- 
trine of  divine  revelation,  and  therefore  requires  a  serious 
answer. 

(1.)  It  is  from  the  book  of  God  we  learn  tiiat  the  Lord 
of  hosts  said,  "  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  Shepherd, 
and  against  the  man  (that  is)  my  fellow  ;  smite  the  Shep- 
herd," Zech.  xiii,  7.  Mr.  G.  will  not  find  it  easy,  on  the 
Socinian  scheme,  to  account  for  justice  "plunging  its 
sword  into  the  soul  of  the  innocent."  This  can  be  done 
only  according  to  that  evangelical  system  which  teaches 
tliat  "  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him  ;"  that  "  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions  ;"  that  "he  was  bruised 
for  our  iniquities  ;"  and  tliat  "  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him."  I'Vom  the  same  source  of  instruc- 
tion we  have  learned  liiat  they  who  "deny  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  l)ring  on  themselves  swiflt  destruction," 
2  Pet.  ii,  1.  Nor  is  it  our  doctrine  that  thus  "converts 
the  justice  of  God  into  vengeance,"  but  that  of  Him  who 


PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OP   JESUS    CHRIST.         191 

hath  said,  "  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me,  I  will  recom- 
pense, saith  the  Lord,"  Heb.  x,  30. 

(2.)  There  is  no  injustice  in  the  final  punishment  of 
obstinate  sinners,  although  Jesus  Christ  have  died  for 
their  sins.  If  the  death  of  Christ  had  been  intended  to 
procure  absolutely  the  forgiveness  of  the  sins  for  which 
he  died,  justice  might  then  require  even  the  forgiveness 
of  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving.  But  if  the  blood  of 
Christ  be  the  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  a  covenant  which 
demands  "  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  "  for  the  remission  of  sins," — the 
"  faithfulness  and  justice"  which  require  the  absolution 
of  those  who,  with  a  proper  reference  to  the  propitiatory 
sacrifice,  "  confess  their  sins,"  do  not  require  the  abso- 
lution of  those  who  obstinately  continue  in  their  sin  and 
unbelief.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  might  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life,"  John  iii,  16.  They, 
therefore,  who  obstinately  refuse  to  believe  in  him,  are 
justly  led  to  "  die  in  their  iniquity."  '•  If  we  sin  wilfully 
(by  rejecting  reconciliation)  after  that  we  have  received 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sa- 
crifice for  sins,  but  a  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment,  and 
fiery  indignation  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries." 
The  sinner,  then,  is  justly  charged,  not  only  with  the 
sins  the  pardon  of  which  he  has  obstinately  refused,  but 
with  that  of  "  treading  undei»  foot  the  Son  of  God,"  and 
of  "  counting  the  blood  of  the  covenant  a  common  thing." 
In  other  words :  the  end  of  public  justice  is  not  answer- 
ed  by  the  death  of  Christ,  in  those  who  live  and  die  im- 
penitent, and  therefore  must  be  answered  by  the  exer- 
cise of  distributive  justice. 

6.  The  next  objection  to  be  considered,  is  that  which 
is  taken  from  the  necessity  of  repentance,  of  forgiveness 
of  injuries,  and  of  good  works,  in  order  to  eternal  sal- 
vation. From  hence  Mr.  G.  boldly  infers  that  there  is 
no  room  for  any  other  atonement.  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  172, 
178,  179,-487.) 

(1.)  Repentance  is  undoubtedly  necessary  for  the  for- 
givenessof  sins  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  repentance 
only  is  necessary.  It  has  been  already  proved  by  many 
scriptural  arguments  that  we  are  justified  by  the  blood  of 


192         PROPITIATORY    SACRIFICK    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

Christ.  It  is  also  a  well  known  fact  that  St.  Peter  ex- 
horted  the  Jews  not  only  to  repent,  but  to  "  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  Acts 
ii,  38.  As  "  enemies  to  God  in  their  minds  by  wicked 
works,"  mankind  are  properly  exhorted  to  renounce  that 
enmity  by  genuine  repentance  ;  but  the  apostles,  who  thus 
beseech  them,  •'  Be  ye  reconciled  to  God,"  state  the  me- 
dium of  that  reconciliation  to  be,  that  God  "  hath  made 
him  (Christ)  to  be  afiapnav,  a  sin-offering  for  us,  who 
knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him  :"  and  that  thus  "  God  was  in  Christ  recon- 
ciling the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  tres- 
passes unto  them,"  2  Cor.  v,  19-21. 

Should  the  Socinians  still  urge  that,  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, genuine  penitents  were  pardoned,  although  they 
knew  nothing  of  the  Christian  atonement, — we  answer 
that  they  applied  to  the  promised  mercy  of  God  :  but  that 
mercy,  though  they  understood  not  perfectly  the  medium 
through  which  it  was  exercised,  was  extended  through 
the  predicted  atonement  of  Christ.  This  is  supposed  to 
be  the  meaning  of  those  words  :  "  Whom  God  has  set 
forth  a  propitiation,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past,"  Rom.  iii,  25. 

(2.)  Our  Lord  has  undoubtedly  enforced  the  forgive- 
ness of  injuries  on  pain  of  the  divine  displeasure,  and 
made  it  one  of  the  terms  of  our  forgiveness,  and  conse- 
quently of  our  salvation.  But  this  is  no  way  inconsist- 
ent with  our  being  forgiven  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ 
has  suffered.  If  a  Socinian  cannot  reconcile  them,  he 
may  submit  to  be  instructed  by  an  apostle  who  said,  '*  Be 
kind,  one  to  another,  tender-hearted,  forgiving  one  another, 
even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  Ibrgiven  you,"  Eph. 
iv,  32. 

(3.)  On  the  subject  of  justification  by  good  works,  i.  e., 
by  universal  holiness,  it  will  be  necessary  to  make  some 
distinction.  Mr.  G.  has  distinguished  between  the  ju?fti. 
fication  of  a  sinner  on  earth,  and  what  he  calls  a  "future 
justification,"  when  "  we  must  all  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment scat  of  Christ,  and  give  an  accoimt  of  ourselves  to 
God."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  168.)  Of  the  former  he  observes, 
"  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  says. 
Being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God ;"  and 


PHOFITIATORY    SACRIFICE    OP   JESUS    CHRIST.         193 

ef  the  latter,  that  "  the  sentence  to  be  pronouncefl^at  the 
day  of  judgment  is  invariably  stated  to  be  pronounced 
according  to  the  works  of  the  individual."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
192.)  To  all  this  we  agree.  It  is  a  Uttle  curious,  how- 
ever,  that,  after  making  this  distinction,  and  after  stating 
that  the  justification  of  a  sinner  is  "  by  faith,"  he  should 
"rest  the  case  upon  this  striking  fact  alone,"  (vol.  ii,  p. 
193,)  viz.,  that  mankind  are  finally  to  be  judged  ac- 
cording  to  their  works.  If  the  distinction  which  he 
has  made  be  just,  the  proof  that  "  the  doers  of  the  law 
shall  be  justified,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  ii,  13,  16,  is  no 
argument  against  that  scriptural  truth,  "  that  (in  the  day 
of  grace)  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law,"  Rom.  iii,  28. 

Here  we  might  quote  a  number  of  passages  to  show 
that  "  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that 
justitieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness,"  Rom.  iv,  5.  But  Mr.  G.,  aware  how 
numerous  such  passages  are,  has  evaded  them  all  by 
stating  that,  "  when  the  Apostle  Paul  speaks  of  faith  and 
works,  as  in  contrast  with  each  other,  by  works  he 
means  the  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  law."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
169.)  With  what  propriety  this  bold  assertion  is  made 
we  will  examine. 

"  Whatsoever  things  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them 
who  are  under  the  law  ;  that  every  mouth  may  he  stopped, 
and  all  the  world  become  guilty  before  God."  Is  it  the 
ceremonial  law  by  which  every  mouth  is  stopped,  and 
which  proves  all  the  world  to  be  guilty  1  "  Therefore 
by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in 
his  sight ;  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin."  Is  it 
the  ceremonial  law  by  which  is  the  knowledge  of  sin  ? 
The  apostle  says,  "  I  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the  law ; 
for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou 
shalt  not  covet,"  Rom.  viii,  7.  Is  it  then  the  ceremonial 
law  which  has  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  ?"  Every  one 
knows  thai,this  is  the  language  of  the  moral  law.  Continu- 
ing to  speak  of  that,  the  apostle  proceeds  to  point  out  the 
proper  mean  of  justification  :  "  But  now  the  righteousness 
of  God  without  the  law  is  manifested,  even  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  unto  all 
17 


194       PROriTIATOBT    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

and  upon  all  them  that  believe  :  being  justified  freely  by 
his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus; 
whom  God  hath  set  forth  a  propitiatory  through  faith  in 
bis  blood.  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  faitli  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  Hence  he 
subjoins,  "  Do  we  then  make  void  tlie  law  through  faith? 
God  forbid  :  yea,  we  establish  the  law,"  Rom.  iii,  19-31. 
Certainly  not  the  ceremonial,  but  the  moral  law  is  esta- 
blished by  faith. 

This  subject   might  be  prosecuted   much  farther  ;  but 
this  is  enough  in  reply  to  Mr.  G.'s  mere  assertion. 

There  is  no  more  inconsistency  between  a  sinner's 
being  "justified,  (in  the  day  of  grace,)  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,"  and  his  being  rewarded  in  the  day  of  judgment, 
♦'  according  to  the  deeds  (subsequently)  done  in  the 
body,"  than  there  is  between  a  rebel's  being  pardoned  by 
the  clemency  of  his  prince,  and  his  being  afterward 
rewarded  for  his  subsequent  faithful  servict-s.  Nor  is 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  death  of  Ciirist 
unfavourable  to  obedience.  It  is  the  only  mean  by  which 
piety  and  morality  can  l)e  established  among  men.  The 
love  of  God  and  of  our  neighbor  is  the  sum  of  the  law, 
which,  therelbre,  he  that  loveth  bath  fulfilled.  But  "  herein 
is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and 
sent  his  Son  to  be  tbe  propitiation  for  our  sins.  We  love 
him  because  he  first  loved  us.  And  if  God  so  loved  us,  we 
ouglit  also  to  love  one  another,"  1  John  iv,  10,  11,  19. 
«•  S\  hat  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through 
the  ilesh,  God,  sending  his  own  J^'on  in  the  likeness  of 
sinl'id  Ilesh,  and  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  (see  p.  18(5,)  con- 
deinnt'd  sin  in  the  flesh  :  that  tlic  riglrteousness  of  the  law 
n)iglit  !)('  fultillcd  in  us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
aflt;r  tlu!  Spirit,"  lioin.  viii,  3,  4. 

The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  not  only  an  expiation  :  it  is 
also  an  ablution.  The  reader  will  porhaj)s  remember, 
that  under  the  Levitical  dispensation,  tbe  red  heil'er  was 
appointed  as  a  representation  of  both  these  purposes,  but 
priMci|Hilly  of  the  latter.  'I'his  animal  was  "  brought  forth 
witliout  the  camp"  and  slain.  Her  blnfid  was  then  sprin- 
kled seven  times  before  the  tabernacle  of  tbe  congrega- 
tion."  The  whole  carcass  was  then  burned,  and  iier 
a»hes  were  preserved  to  make  "  a  water  of  separation,  a 


PROPITIATOEir    SACRIFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.         195 

purification  for  sin,"  Num.  xix,  1,  3,  4,  9.  Inallu*sion  to 
this  institution,  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  says, — "  For 
the  bodies  of  those  beasts,  whose  blood  is  brought  into  the 
sanctuary  for  sin,  are  burned  without  the  camp.  Where- 
fore Jesus  also,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  people  with 
his  own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate,"  Heb.  xiii,  11, 
12.  There  is  the  same  allusion  in  those  words  :  "  If  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  (as  expiations,)  and  the  ashes 
of  a  heifer  (as  a  purification  for  sin)  sprinkling  the  un- 
clean,  sanctifietli  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh ;  how 
much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ  purge  your  con- 
science  from  dead  works  (as  an  expiation,  and  thereby 
sanctify  to  the  purifying  of  the  soul)  to  serve  the  living 
Ood,"  (and  thus  answer  also  the  purpose  of  an  ablution,) 
Heb.  X,  13,  14.  On  earth,  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
his  Son  cleanseth  from  all  sin,"  and  therefore  in  heaven 
the  moral  purity  of  glorified  saints  is  ascribed  to  the  effi- 
cacy  of  this  great  sacrifice:  "These  are  they  that  have 
come  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have  washed  their 
robes  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb," 
Rev,  vii,  14.  And  hence,  all  their  salvation  is  attributed 
"  to  him  that  hath  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,"  Rev.  i,  3. 

For  the  sake  of  meeting  these  difficulties  in  a  scrip- 
tural manner,  we  have  already  distinguished  three  classes 
of  ideas  and  terms,  by  which  the  subject  before  us  is 
revealed.  To  these  we  may  add  another  class  which  we 
may  denominate  domestic.  Of  all  these,  it  is  worth 
while  to  observe  that  each  of  them  is  used  for  particular 
purposes.  (1.)  The  domestic  terms  are  used  to  point 
out  the  aggravated  nature  and  ruinous  consequences  of 
sin,  the  nature  and  propriety  of  repentance,  and  the  rea. 
diness  with  which  God  forgives  the  penitent.  Of  this 
observation  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  is  the  best 
illustration.  They  are  used  also  to  show  that  God  will 
forgive  sin  only  on  terms  which  are  consistent  with  the 
good  order  of  his  family.  Hence  we  are  taught  to  pray, 
"  Our  Fa^jer  which  art  in  heaven — forgive  us  our  tres- 
passes, as  we  forgive  them  that  trespass  against  us." 
(2.)  The  sacrificial  terms  are  used  to  give  us  the  most 
proper  views  of  the  design  of  the  death  of  Christ,  as  the 
object  of  our  faith,  the  medium  of  onr  access  to  God,  and 


196       PROPITIATORY   SACRIFICE   OF   JBSUS    CHRIST. 

the  meritorious  cause  of  our  pardon  and  acceptance.  (3.) 
The  judicial  terms  are  useil  to  show  how  the  forgiveness 
of  offending  man  is  rendered  consistent  with  the  pubhc 
justice  of  the  offended  God:  how  mercy  and  truth  meet 
together ;  and  righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each 
other."  (4.)  The  terms  of  emancipation  are  to  show  that 
our  redemption  obhges  us  to  serve  and  obey  our  Re- 
deemer. "  Ye  are  not  your  own,  (says  St.  Paul,)  for  ye 
are  bought  with  a  price,  therefore  glorify  God,  in  your 
body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God's." 

But  no  one  class  of  terms  will  perfectly  answer  everv 
purpose  of  divine  revelation.  It  is  not  by  a  partial  view- 
that  we  can  form  just  ideas  of  this  subject  in  all  its  bear- 
ings, but  by  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  whole.  Jehovah 
is  not  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  Father ;  but  as  a  Re- 
deemer, a  moral  Governor,  and  a  God.  Hence  the 
sacred  writers,  for  the  complicated  purposes  already  spe- 
cified, sometimes  mingle,  in  one  sentence,  all  the  various 
classes  of  terms  which  we  have  enumerated.  The  two 
following  passages  will  afford  the  most  perfect  specimens  : 
"  If  ye  call  on  the  Father,  who  without  respect  of  per- 
sons judgeth  according  to  every  man's  work,  pass  the 
time  of  your  sojourning  here  in  fear :  forasmuch  as  ye 
know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold  ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ, 
as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot,"  1  Pet. 
i,  17-19.  "  All  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory 
of  God;  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare 
his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God  :  that  he  might  be  just, 
and  the  justificr  of  hiui  which  believeth  in  Jesus,"  Rom.  iii, 
23-*26.  If  the  reader  observe  that  the  terms,  '•  the  blood 
of  a  lamb  without  blemish,  and  without  spot,"  are  sacri- 
ficial ;  and  the  terms  "  remission  of  sins  through  the  for- 
bearance of  God,"  are  used  i"n  allusion  to  paternal  kind- 
ness and  mercy,  and  are  domestic,  he  will  see  that 
the  four  classes  of  terms  are  distinctly  adopted  in  both 
these  passages. 

7.  "  But  it  is  evident  from  several  of  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses, that  he  coni^idered  that    the    apostles,  by  their 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       197 

tSeath,  were  to  accomplish  the  same  object  as  he'T)y  his 
death."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  192.) 

This  objection  furnishes  a  strong  argument  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  which  we  have  endeavoured  to  establish. 
The  apostles  suffered  in  the  cause  of  truth  as  well  as  their 
Master.  "  They  drank  of  his  cup,  and  were  baptized 
with  his  baptism  :"  and  they  call  on  us  to  follow  their 
example  as  they  followed  his.  But  was  Paul  crucified 
for  us  ?  or  were  any  baptized  in  his  name  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ?  Were  they  made  a  sin-offering  for  us  ?  Did 
they  redeem  any  of  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us  ?  Are  we  justified  by  their  blood  1 
These  are,  however,  the  objects  which  are  said  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  death  of  Christ  :  objects  which  the 
apostles  never  imagined  would  be  accomplished  by  theirs. 
This  vast  superiority  of  the  design  and  efficacy  of  the 
death  of  Christ  will  be  eternally  celebrated,  when  all  the 
sprinkled  race  shall  join  in  the  Antisocinian  song,  "  Thou 
wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God,  by  thy  blood, 
out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and 
nation." 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Of  tlie  Eternity  of  the  future  Punuhment  of  the 
Wicked. 

It  is  a  strong  indication  of  the  badness  of  a  cause, 
when  its  advocate,  at  the  opening  of  his  plea,  assails 
the  ear  of  the  judge  with  appeals  to  his  passions  rather 
than  to  his  reason.  Mr.  G.  has  pot,  however,  been  pru- 
dent  enough  to  lull  our  suspicions  by  avoiding  this  manceu- 
vre.  To  prepossess  the  mind  of  the  reader,  he  has  repre- 
sented  the  God  of  his  own  system  as  uniting  in  himself 
every  thing  which  he  deems  amiable,  while  the  God  of  his 
opponents  is  caricatured  as  a  hideous  assemblage  of  every 
thino-  teriijfic.  Like  one  who  can  suit  his  friends  with 
gods  according  to  their  own  heart,  he  then  calls  upon 
them  to  make  their  choice. 

Before  the  reader  fix  his  choice  in  a  matter  so  import- 
ant,  it  will  be  well  for  him  to  review  the  drawings  which 
17* 


198  ETERNITY    OF   FtTTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

Mr.  G.  has  sketched.  The  God  whom  Me  are  supposed 
to  worship,  he  caricatures  thus  : — "  He  is  a  monarch,  a 
small  proportion  of  whose  subjects  are  his  avowed  favour- 
ites and  friends.  These  he  crowns  with  the  higliest 
honours,  and  loads  with  the  greatest  dignities;  they  sit 
around  his  throne  and  enjoy  his  smiles  and  favours  :  but 
at  least  nine-tenths  of  the  subjects  of  this  monarch  are 
immersed  in  gloomy  dungeons,  '  shut  from  the  common 
air,  and  common  use  of  their  own  limbs,'  enchained  in 
the  blackness  of  darkness,  exposed  to  repeated  and  in- 
creasing racks  and  tortures  of  every  kind  ;  their  deep 
horrific  groans  continually  assail  his  car,  tlieir  .distorted 
limbs  and  writhing  agonies  meet  his  eye  in  every  direc- 
tion, while  he,  well  pleased,  looks  on  and  smiles  in  calm 
complacence."     (Vol.  i,  p.  201.) 

Perhaps  some  shrewd  men  will  think  they  behold  here 
a  distorted  likeness  of  the  God  who  has  been  worshipped 
in  some  parts  of  Christendom.  For  our  part,  we  think 
that  if  Moloch  can  "  smile,"  he  must  be  the  true  original. 
At  any  rate,  this  is  not  the  God  who  has  revealed  himself 
in  the  Bible,  and  whom  we  adore.  We  worship  a  God 
*'  with  whom  there  is  no  respect  of  persons,"  Rom.  ii,  11  : 
who  "  is  good  to  all."  and  whose  "  tender  mercies  are  over 
all  his  works,"  Psa.  cxlv,  9  :  who  "  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  bc- 
lieveth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life,"  John  iii,  16:  "who  ee?.a,  wisheth  all  men  to  be 
saved,   and  to   come  unto  the    knowledge  of  the    truth," 

1  Tim.  ii,  4  :  "  who  is  long  siiHering  to  usward,  //;;  ,it</.o. 
Htvo(,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all 
should  come  to  repontanco."  2  Pet.  ifi,  9  :  who  "  has  no 
pleasure  in  ihe  d«>ath  of  the  wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked 
turn  from  his  way  and  \ivo."  E/ck.  xxxiii.  11  :  and  who 
even  "  beseeciies   the  rebellious  to  be  reconciled  to  him," 

2  Cor.  v,  20. 

Hut  if  we  reject  this  hideous  devil-god,  whom  Mr.  G. 
has  presented  to  our  imagination,  in  order  to  drive  us  to 
the  worship  of  another  of  his  own  making,  let  iis  examine 
whether  this  latter  be  more  like  tho  true  (iod.  You 
shall  (now)  be  introduced  to  a  monarch  who  reigns  over 
his  subjects  with  parental  kindness;  he  considers  all  as 
his  children  ;  he  feels  a  tender  concern  and  love  for  all  ; 


ETERNITV  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       199 

his  laws  are  equitable  and  impartial ;  his  grand  object  is 
to  make  all  happy  ;  the  obstinate,  the  wajward,  the  re- 
bellious, he  is  compelled  to  punish ;  but  his  punishment 
is  proportioned  to  the  degree  of  their  guilt,  and  the  object 
of  it  still  is  to  guide  them  to  reformation  and  to  happi 
ness."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  200.) 

This  being  is  something  more  like  "  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  But,  however  amiable  he  may  ap- 
pear, we  have  reason  to  complain  that,  to  serve  an  hypo- 
thesis, he  is  robbed  of  an  essential  part  of  his  real  cha- 
racter. That  our  God  is  a  Father,  we  acknowledge 
with  filial  gratitude  ;  but  not  that  he  is,  as  Mr.  G.  has 
represented  him,  a  Father  only.  If  the  character  of  a 
Father  would  have  perfectly  represented  to  us  "  the  God 
of  judgment,"  wiiy,  in  making  him  known  to  us,  are  other 
characters  very  different  from  this,  though  not  opposed 
to  it,  used  by  the  sacred  writers?  Mr.  G.,  it  is  true, 
makes  mention  of  him  as  a  "  Monarch,"  and  speaks  of 
"■  his  laws,"  and  of  the  "  punishment"  of  "  the  rebellious  ;" 
but  he  takes  care  to  lose  the  Monarch  in  the  Father,  and 
his  judicial  punishments  in  parental  chastisements.  The 
clxaracter  of  a  moral  governor  is  thus  entirely  blotted  out, 
and  the  name  only  is.  left  ;  while  all  the  unmingled  affec- 
tion of  a  parent  remains.  Such  a  character  as  Mr.  G. 
has  drawn  may  suit  the  mere  father  of  a  family,  and  in 
him  would  be  truly  amiable  ;  but  it  does  not  exactly  suit 
the  '•  Governor  of  all  the  earth."  However  proper  it 
may  be  for  a  moral  governor  to  chastise  corrigible  oflTend- 
ers  for  their  amendment,  it  is  also  his  part  "  not  to  bear 
the  sword  (by  which  daring  rebels  and  incorrigible  offend- 
ers  are  cut  off)  in  vain  ;  for  he  is  a  revenger  to  exe- 
cute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil,"  Rom.  xiii,  4. 

The  nature  of  the  divine  government  as  described  in 
the  Scriptures  is  of  such  importance  to  the  present  sub- 
ject, that  it  demands  our  particular  consideration.  God  is 
not  a  Governor  who  merely  gives  rules  of  conduct  to  his 
subjects,  and  chastises  the  transgressors  for  their  amend- 
ment ;  bcrt  who  maintains  his  authority  by  declaring  him- 
self that  "  one  Lawgiver,  who  is  able  to  save  and  to  de- 
stroy," James  v,  12.  The  penalties  by  which  his  laws 
are  enforced  are  not  such  as  do  not  touch  the  life  of  the 
criminal :  they  are  capital  punishments.     The  language 


200      ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

of  his  law  is,  "The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die,"  Ezekr 
xviii,  4.  That  penalty  is  not  designed  for  the  final  benefit 
of  the  ofi'ender.  The  divine  autliority  has  indeed  appoint' 
ed  it  a  -priori,  for  the  benefit  of  the  governed  by  the  pre- 
vention of  crimes  ;  but  it  is  not  inflicted,  a  jwsieriari,  for 
the  final  benefit  of  those  who  disregard  that  authority. 
"  Cursed,"  therefore,  "  is  every  one  that  continueth  not 
in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to 
do  them,"  Gal.  iii,  10.  His  offending  sul)jects,  who  are 
finally  impenitent,  are  no  longer  regarded  by  him  with 
paternal  affection.  "  It  is  a  people  of  no  understanding  : 
therefore  he  that  made  them  will  not  have  mercy  pn  them, 
and  he  that  formed  them  will  show  them  no  favour," 
Isa.  xxvii,  11  ;  "for  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire,"  Heb. 
xii,  29.  "  The  Lord  trieth  the  righteous  :  but  the  wick- 
ed, and  him  that  loveth  violence,  his  soul  hateth.  Upon 
the  wicked  he  shall  rain  snares,  fire,  and  brimstone,  and 
a  horrible  tempest :  this  shall  be  the  portion  of  their 
cup,"  Psa.  xi,  5,  6.  "  He  (tiie  sinner)  shall  drink  of  the 
wine  of  the  wrath  of  God,  wiiich  is  poured  out  without 
mixture  into  the  cup  of  his  indignation,"   Uev.  xiv,  10. 

From  this  distinction  between  the  parental  and  the  regal 
character  of  the  Most  High,  arises  another  distinction 
equally  obliterated  by  the  Socinians,  and  yet  equally 
scriptural :  that  between  the  wholesome  chastisement 
which  is  intended  for  the  amendment  of  the  offender,  and 
the  judicial  punishment  which  is  inflicted  on  the  incor- 
rigible. This  distinction  is  marked  by  circumstances 
which  are  specifically  attributed  to  the  one,  and  arc  posi- 
tively denied  of  the  other.  Thus  :  "  Wiiom  the  Lord 
loveth  he  chasteneth,  and  scourgelh  dvery  son  whom  he 
receiveth,"  Hel).  xii,  G.  But  it  cannot  be  a  proof  of  his 
love  to  the  disobedient,  that  "  he  will  render  unto  them 
indignation  and  wrath,"  Rom.  ii,  8  ;  for  "  the  wicked  his 
soul  hateth,"  Psalm  xi,  5  :  nor  can  God  be  said  to  receive 
those  to  whom  he  says.  "  I  never  knew  you  !  Depart  from 
me,  ye  that  work  inicpiity  !"  Matt,  vii,  23.  ••  If  we  endure 
chastening,  (Jod  dealcth  with  us  as  with  sons;  and  if  we 
be  without  chastisement,  then  are  we  bastards  and  not 
sons,"  Ili-b.  xii,  7,  8.  But  it  is  not  eiiually  true  that  "  we 
arc  bastards  and  not  sons,"  if  we  be  without  the  damnation 
of  hell,  and  if  Christ   say,   "Come,  ye  blessed  of  my 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       201 

Father,"  Matt,  xxv,  34,  "  Blessed  is  the  man  wKom  the 
Lord  chasteneth,"  Psa.  xciv,  12  ;  but  they  are  not  blessed 
to  whom  the  King  shall  say,  "  Depart  trom  me,  ot  Karripa. 
/levoi,  ye  cursed,  into  the  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels,"  Matt,  xxv,  41.  So  essential  is  the 
diticrence  between  the  chastisement  of  God's  children, 
and  the  punishment  of  his  rebellious  subjects  ! 

But  Mr.  G.  positively  asserts  that  when  our  Lord  says, 
"  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,"  he 
means  "corrective  chastisement."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  206.)  To 
prove  this,  he  exhibits  the  usual  criticism  on  the  word 
Kolaaic,  which  our  translators  render  punishment,  and 
which  he  thinks  decisive  in  favor  of  the  opinion,  that  to 
"go  accursed  into  everlasting  fire,"  is  to  receive  "the 
benefit  "  of  a  "  corrective  chastisement."  While  we  take 
the  liberty  to  contradict  his  statement,  the  reader  will  keep 
in  mind  that  Mr.  G.  rests  the  question  on  the  meaning  of 
this  word,  and  undertakes  to  prove  that  it  does  and  must 
mean  "corrective  chastisement."     Now  for  the  proof. 

1.  "In  this  sense  it  was  used  by  heathen  Greek  writers 
and  philosophers."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  206.)  But  not  one  of 
them  is  quoted,  so  that  this  stands  for — nothing.  Besides, 
if  they  were  quoted,  and  the  passages  should  be  found  to 
prove  that  KolaoL^  is  sometimes  used  in  this  sense,  how 
is  it  proved  that  it  is  never  used  in  any  other  sense? 

2.  "  Grotius  states  it  to  be  one  of  the  words  used  by 
them,  in  reference  to  such  punishments  as  were  intended 
for  the  benefit  of  him  who  oftended,  or  of  him  to  whom  it 
was  of  importance  that  the  offence  should  not  have  been 
committed,  or  in  short  for  the  benefit  of  some  one."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  205.)  So  it  appears  from  Grotius,  that  Ko?Mai(;  does 
not  always  mean  a  punishment  inflicted  for  the  benefit  of 
the  oflender,  but  sometimes  for  the  benefit  of  him  who  is 
injured  by  the  olfence  ! 

3.  "The  two  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 
the  verb  KOAai^u  is  used,  perfectly  accord  with,  if  they  do 
not  require,  the  same  construction.  Acts  iv,  21 ;  2  Peter 
ii,  9."  (¥ol.  ii,  p.  208.)  To  make  good  Mr.  G.'s  argu- 
ment, the  word  must  absolutely  "  recjuire"  this  construction. 
But  as  he  has  not  condescended  to  examine  those  texts, 
that  task  devolves  upon  us.  The  first  of  these  passages 
is  as  follows : — "When  they  (the  Jewish  rulers)  had  far- 


*i02  ETERNITY    OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

ther  threatened  them  (Peter  and  John)  they  let  them  go, 
finding  nothing  how  Ko/.aauvrai,  they  might  punish  them, 
because  of  the  people."  These  rulers  dared  not,  at  one 
time,  to  lay  their  hands  on  Jesus  Christ,  for  fear  of  the 
people  ;  but  when  that  fear  was  removed,  they  put  him  to 
death.  The  fear  of  the  people,  in  like  manner,  restrained 
them,  in  the  present  case,  from  putting  Peter  and  John  to 
death.  But  how  will  it  be  made  to  appear  that,  if  they 
had  dared  to  slay  them,  they  would  have  inflicted  that 
punishment  as  a  salutary  chastisement?  The  other  pas- 
sage runs  thus :  '•  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  reserve  the 
unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment,  Ko2.ai^o/iEvovc,  to  be  pun- 
ished." The  punishment  here  referred  to  is  that  to  be 
inflicted  in  "  the  day  of  judgment."  To  suppose,  then,  that 
here  the  word  means  a  corrective  chastisement,  is  to  take 
for  granted  the  very  thing  which  should  be  proved. 

4.  "  Tlie  word  Ko?.aaic  occurs  in  only  one  other  place 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  there  it  relates  to  the  eflbcts 
produced  upon  the  body  and  mind  by  the  operation  of  fear, 
1  John  iv,  18."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  205.)  The  words  are,  "  Fear 
hath  KuWaaiv,  torment."  But  how  does  it  appear  that  here 
it  means  "  corrective  chastisement  ?" 

We  do  not  find,  then,  that  Mr.  G.  has  made  out  his 
case,  viz.,  that  "  this  term,  so  far  from  encouraging,  directly 
opposes  the  supposition  of  never  ending  torments."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  208. 

After  this  examination,  that  the  meaning  of  the  word 
may  not  be  left  in  any  degree  of  uncertainty,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  show  that  Ko7MaiQ  ia  a  very  proper  word  to 
express  a  vindictive  punishment. 

1.  Andreas  Cesar,  in  his  commentary  on  Rev.  xiv,  11, 
observes,  "It  is  said  that  their  smoke  ascendeth  up  for 
ever  and  ever,  that  we  may  loarn  that  Ku7Maiv,  the  |)unisli- 
ment  of  the  wicked  is  are/.evTii-ov,  endless,  as  also  the  rest 
of  the  righteous  is  aiuviov,  everlasting.  Here  we  have  the 
word  in  dispute  connected  witli  an  adjective  which  ex- 
pressly fixes  its  meaning  to  endless;  and  consequently 
here  it  must  mean  more  than  a  corrective,  limited  punish- 
ment. 

2.  "  The  next  example  shall  be  taken  from  Polycarp. 
bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  was  cotemporary  with,  and  the 
disciple  of  John.     He  answered  the  proconsul  who  threat. 


ETERNITY    OF   FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  203 

ened  to  burn  him,  '  Ye  threaten  me  with  a  fire  tharturns 
for  an  hour,  and  shall  shortly  be  extinguished,  but  are 
ignorant  that  there  is  a  fire  ot*  future  judgment,  and  ever- 
lasting KolaoEug,  punishment,  reserved  for  the  ungodly.' 
{Epis.  Smyr.  Eccles.)  The  antitheses,  in  this  passage, 
evidently  point  out  a  punishment  endless  in  its  duration  : 
and  as  this  venerable  martyr  has  used  this  word  in  a  sense 
entirely  unUmited,  we  have  a  proof  that  noXaaic  is  a  proper 
word  for  expressing  a  future,  vindictive  punishment. 

3.  "  The  next  example  is  from  Germanus,  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  who,  in  his  defence  of  Gregory  Nyssene, 
showed  from  Scripture  '  that,  as  the  rest  of  the  righteous 
is  unspeakable,  so  also  Kolaaiv,  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  is  aTelevrriTov,  endless,  and  most  intolerable.' — 
{Photius,  cod.  233.)  Here  again  the  adjective  connected 
with  it,  fixing  its  meaning  to  endless,  shows  that  more  is 
meant  than  a  limited  and  corrective  punishment. 

4.  "The  last  example  shall  be  from  Lucian.  Tantalus, 
deploring  his  dreadful  state  in  the  infernal  regions,  as  be- 
ing ready  to  perish  with  thirst  in  the  midst  of  abundance 
of  water,  says  to  Menippus,  '  This  is  the  very  nature  of 
my  7/  Ko?.aaic,  punishment,  that  my  soul  should  thirst,  as 
though  it  were  a  body.'  This  punishment  is  called,  in  a 
line  or  two  below,  KafadcKij,  vindictive."  {Scrutator,  pages 
89,  90.) 

Hitherto  we  have  been  proving  that  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked  is  not  designed  for  their  correction. 
It  was  necessary  first  to  settle  this  point,  because  if  that 
punishment  were  intended  for  their  correction,  it  probably 
would  sooner  or  later  have  an  end.  We  now  come  to  that 
part  of  the  evidence  which  goes  to  prove  that  that  punish- 
ment will  be  positively  eternal. 

The  English  reader  will  very  easily  advert  to  the  fol- 
lowing passages  of  holy  writ : — "  Then  shall  he  say  unto 
them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into 
everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels," 
Matt.  XXV,  41.  "  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlast- 
ing  punisljjnent,"  Matt,  xxv,  46.  "  Wherefore  if  thy  hand 
or  thy  foot  ofiend  thee,  cut  them  off",  and  cast  them  from 
thee  ;  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  halt  or  maimed, 
rather  than  having  two  hands  or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into 
the  everlasting  fire,"  Matt,  xviii,  8.     «  The  Lord  Jesus 


204  ETERNITY    OF    FUTIRE    PUNISHMENT. 

shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in 
flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God, 
and  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power," 
2  Thess.  i,  7-9.  '•  He  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation,"  Mark  iii, 
29.  "  These  are  wells  without  water,  clouds  that  are 
carried  with  a  tempest,  to  whom  the  mist  of  darkness  is 
reserved  for  ever,"  2  Pet.  ii,  17.  "  These  are  spots  in 
your  feasts  of  charity,  when  they  feast  with  you,  feeding 
themselves  without  fear  ;  clouds  without  water,  carried 
about  with  winds  ;  trees  whose  fruit  witherethj  without 
fruit,  twice  dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots  ;  raging  waves 
of  the  sea,  foaming  out  their  own  shame  ;  wandering  stars, 
to  whom  is  reserved  the  blackness  of  darkness  for  ever," 
Jude  12,  13.  "If  any  man  worship  the  beast  and  his 
image,  and  receive  his  mark  in  his  forehead,  or  in  his  hand, 
the  same  shall  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God, 
which  is  poured  out  without  mixture  into  the  cup  of  his 
indignation  ;  and  he  shall  be  tormented  with  tire  and  brim- 
stone in  the  |)resence  of  the  holy  angels,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Lamb  :  and  the  smoke  of  their  torment  as- 
cendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever,"  Rev.  xiv,  9-11. 

Mr.  G.  is  well  aware  how  this  last  passage  will  overturn 
his  whole  hypothesis,  and,  therefore,  he  has  taken  some 
pains  to  expunge  it.  1.  To  show  that  this  passage  re- 
lates to  temporal  events,  he  cites  the  eighth  verse  :  "Ba- 
bylon is  fallen."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  235.)  Hut  Babylon  may 
fall  on  cartli  first,  and  the  Babylonians  may  be  punished 
in  hell  afterward.  2.  He  oiyects  that  "  the  passage  does 
not  assert  that  the  persons  should  be  tortured  for  tiiis 
length  of  time,  but  that  the  smoke  tliereof  should  ascend." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  23.0.)  This  is  curious  enougli,  and  may  serve 
to  show  to  what  shifts  some  men  will  condescend.  How 
can  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascend,  when  they  are  no 
longer  tormented?  Whatever  smoke  may  ascend,  it  can- 
not be  the  smoke  of  their  torment,  when  their  torment  is 
at  an  end.  3.  To  secure  this  point,  however,  that  the 
smoke  of  their  torment  may  ascend  when  they  are  no 
longer  tormented,  Mr.  G.  ventures  to  say  tliat  "  the 
phrase  is  taken  from  Isa.  xiv,  10,"  where  it  is  said,  "And 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       205 

the  streams  thereof  shall  be  turned  to  pitch,  and  the  dust 
thereof  to  brimstone,  and  the  land  thereof  shall  become 
burning  pitcli.  It  shall  not  be  quenched  day  nor  night  ; 
the  smoke  thereof  shall  go  up  for  ever,"  &c.  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
236.)  Now  what  is  there  in  all  this  passage  to  show  that 
a  smoke  can  ascend  which  can  properly  be  called  the 
smoke  of  their  torment,  when  their  torment  has  long  ago 
ceased  ? 

The  English  reader  can  have  no  doubt  whether,  if  the 
preceding  translations  be  just,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment be  true.  But  the  premises  are  not  allowed  by 
our  opponents.  It  is  in  vain  to  urge  that  our  translators 
understood  something  of  Greek  :  neither  their  learning  nor 
their  integrity  can  lie  relied  on  by  a  Socinian.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  to  re-examine  the 
subject. 

The  word  aiuv  is  derived  from  two  words,  aei  uv,  which 
signify,  always  being.  This  etymology  points  out  the 
ideal  meaning  of  the  word  atuv :  which  properly  signifies 
the  whole  duration  of  that  being  to  which  it  is  applied,  in 
that  respect  in  which  it  is  applied.  It  cannot  reasonably 
be  denied  that  Aristotle  understood  the  meaning  of  it,  and 
the  use  which  was  made  of  it  by  his  contemporaries  and 
predecessors  in  Grecian  literature.  Speaking  of  God 
and  celestial  intelligences,  he  says,  "  They  neither  inhabit 
place,  nor  wax  old  by  time,  nor  are  subject  to  changes  or 
passions :  but  living  the  best  and  most  satisfying  life,  6ia. 
reXei  rov  arravTa  aiuva,  they  continue  through  all  eternity. 
And  this  the  ancients  properh'  expressed  by  tlie  word 
itself:  for  the  consummation  which  contains  the  time  of 
every  one's  life,  not  supernatural,  is  called  his  aiuv.  For 
the  very  same  reason,  the  consummation  of  the  whole 
heaven,  and  that  which  contains  the  whole  infinite  dura- 
tion and  infinity  of  all  things,  is  aiuv  eternity,  otto  th  aiei 
eivai  Ei?,7}(pur  tijv  c^iuwiuav,  a'davatoQ  i:ai  •&eioc,  taking  its  nanrie 
from  always  being,  immortal,  and  divine."  (Aris.  de  ccdo, 
lib,  i,  cap.  11.) 

When  this  word  is  applied  to  the  present  stage  of  human 
existence,  it  includes  the  whole  term  of  the  natural  life  of 
the  individual  of  whom  it  is  predicated.  Thus,  according 
to  Mr.  G.,  "  The  Apostle  Paul  says,  I  will  not  eat  flesh, 
«tf  Tov  aiuva,  for  ever,"  1  Cor.  viii,  13,  that  is,  during  my 
18 


"206       ETERNITY  OF  FUTUKE  PUNISHMENT. 

natural  life.  But  when  it  is  applied  to  any  beings  as 
unconnected  with  the  present  limited  duration,  it  is  then 
used  in  speaking  of  beings  whose  existence  is  endless, 
and  that  state  of  those  beings,  the  duration  of  which  it  is 
intended  to  mark,  it  indicates  to  be  endless  as  their  exist- 
ence. This  is  the  case  in  the  following  passages : — "  If 
any  one  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  (hereafter,)  etj- 
Tov  aiuva,  for  ever,"  John  vi,  51,  58.  "  We  have  heard 
out  of  the  law,  that  the  Christ  remaineth,  eig  tov  aiuva,  for 
ever,"  John  xii,  34.  "  His  righteousness  remaineth,  etg 
TOV  aiuva,  for  ever,"  2  Cor.  ix,  9.  "  Being  born  again  not 
of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  of  the  word  of 
God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  eic  tov  aiuva,  for  ever," 
1  Pet.  i,  23.  "  The  truth  which  shall  be  with  us,  etc  tov 
aiuva,  for  ever,"  2  John  2.  Now  we  call  upon  the  Soci- 
nians  to  point  out  one  single  passage  in  which  this  phrase 
is  applied  to  any  being  unconnected  with  this  changing 
scene,  in  which  it  evidently  defines  a  limited  duration. 

When  this  word  is  put  in  the  plural  with  the  same  pre- 
position, eic  Ttsc  aiuvac,  it  does  not  imply  "  two  eternities, 
or  two  for  overs,"  as  Mr.  G.  shrewdly  objects,  (vol.  ii,  p. 
220,)  but  includes  both  the  present  temporary  and  the 
future  endless  state.  Let  the  reader  consider  the  follow, 
ing  passages  : — "The  Creator,  who  is  blessed  eic  i"«f  a'w- 
vcf,  now  and  for  ever,"  Rom.  i,  25  ;  i.e.,  who  is  blessed 
by  his  creatures  through  their  present  temporary  and  their 
future  eternal  state.  "  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  eir  -«c  aiuva^,  now  and  for  ever,"  Rom.  ix,  25. 
But  as  this  use  of  the  word  implies  both  the  present  mea- 
sured, and  the  future  immeasurable  duration,  it  is  never 
used  in  speaking  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  Yet 
from  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  places  referred  to,  wc  may 
perceive  that  we  have  given  the  true  meaning  of  the  term, 
and  that,  as  applied  to  a  future  duration,  it  still  implies 
eternity. 

There  is  a  third  phrase,  however,  which  diflers  from 
both  these  :  it  is,  fir  7«f  muvar;  tuv  aiufiov,  which  is  gene- 
rally translated  "  for  ever  and  ever,"  and  might  perhaps 
be  rendored,  tiirough  tl>e  durations  of  durations.  This 
form  of  speech  is  very  intelligible,  and  may  be  properly 
called  the  superlative.  What  is  the  huly  c»f  holies,  but  the 
most  holy?  What  is  the  heaven  of  heavens,  but  the  high- 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       207 

est  heaven  ?  And  what  are  the  "  durations  of  durations," 
or,  as  some  Socinians  call  them,  "  the  ages  of  ages,"  but 
that  duration  which  is  the  greatest  of  ail,  that  is  proper 
eternity.  This  phrase  is  used  only  on  the  most  important 
occasions,  and  to  indicate  an  unlimited  duration.  It  is 
usedi  (1.)  To  point  out  the  eternity  of  the  Most  High  :• 
"  He  that  sat  on  the  throne  who  liveth  eic  r«f  muvac  ruv 
aiuvuv,  for  ever  and  ever."  (See  Rev.  iv,  9,  10;  v,  14; 
X,  6  ;  XV,  7.)  (2.)  To  mark  the  endless  duration  of  his 
government  :  "  He  shall  reign  eig  t8q  aiuvac  tuv  aiuvuv, 
for  ever  and  ever."  (See  Rev.  xi,  15.)  (3.)  To  indicate 
the  everlasting  praise  which  shall  be  rendered  to  him  : — - 
"Blessing,  honour,  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sit^ 
teth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  slq  -sg  aiuvag 
TUV  aiuvuv,  for  ever  and  ever."  (See  Rev.  v,  13  ;  vii,  12.) 
(4.)  To  describe  the  endless  duration  of  the  blessedness 
of  the  righteous  :  "  And  they  shall  reign  eic  rsr  aiuvag  tuv 
aiuvuv,  for  ever  and  ever."  (See  Rev.  xxii,  5.)  (5.)  And 
finally,  to  describe  the  duration  of  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  :  "  And  her  smoke  rose  up  «f  thq  aiuvac  tuv  aiu- 
vuv,  for  ever  and  ever."  (See  Rev.  xiv,  11  ;  xix,  3  ; 
XX,  10.) 

It  is  for  the  Socinians  to  show  where  the  apostles  have 
used  this  phrase  in  a  sense  manifestly  limited. 

The  adjective  aiuvioc  derives  from  the  substantive  aiuv 
its  abstract  meaning,  and  therefore  admits  and  requires 
a  similar  application.  This  word,  Mr.  G.  thinks,  should  be 
rendered  lasting,  in  conformity  with  what  he  deems  the 
indefinite  duration  of  an  aiuv.  Had  the  word  acuvLog  been, 
in  the  view  of  the  sacred  writers,  as  indefinite  as  the  word 
lasting,  it  could  not  have  served  their  purpose.  Nothing 
could  be  of  greater  importance  in  enforcing  religion  on 
the  minds  of  mankind,  than  the  difference  between  time 
and  eternity.  Nothing  was  more  necessary  to  them, 
therefore,  than  a  definite  term  by  which  they  might  deci- 
sively  distinguish  between  things  temporal  and  things  eter- 
nal. Any  periphrasis  had  been  better  than  a  word,  the 
meaning  of  which  was  indefinite.  But  the  meaning  of  the 
word  lasting  is  perfectly  indefinite,  and  may  include  either 
a  long  or  a  short  period  of  time ;  and,  therefore,  it  does  not 
at  all  distinguish  between  those  things  which  have  an  end, 
and  those  which  have  no  end. 


208  EIEHJN'ITY    OF    FVTL'RE    rUMSIIMENT. 

As  the  word  aiuv  has  a  definite  meaning,  and,  when 
appUed  to  duration,  always  includes  the  whole  period  of 
that  duration  to  which  it  refers — and  as,  when  it  refers  to 
existence  beyond  this  world,  it  always  includes  unmea- 
sured duration — the  adjective  must  also  have  a  definite 
meaning.  With  liberty,  therefore,  to  make  the  san^  use 
of  the  translation  which  is  made  of  the  original,  we  cannot 
render  it  better  than  by  the  word  eternal. 

This  is  precisely  and  distinctly  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
used  by  the  sacred  writers  ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  the  very 
word  which  they  have  adopted  to  distinguish  interminable 
duration  iVoni  that  which  has  an  end.  For  instance : 
"  Our  light  aflliction  which  is  but  for  a  moment,  \vorketh 
out  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  oiw^iov  eternal  weight 
of  glory."  Again  :  "  For  the  things  which  are  seen  are 
irpocTKaipa,  temporal,  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are 
aiuvia,  eternal,"  2  Cor.  iv,  17,  18.  In  these  two  places 
we  find  that  aiuvior  is  used  to  distinguish  the  things  which 
have  no  end,  from  those  which  are  indeed  "  lasting,"  but 
not  everlasting.  If  the  word  had  not  an  independent 
power  to  make  this  distinction,  it  could  not  have  answered 
the  apostle's  purpose. 

This  word,  then,  is  used  to  announce  the  unlimited  du- 
ration of  things  undoubtedly  without  limit.  (1.)  It  is  put 
for  the  endless  duration  of  God  himself.  He  is  calle<l 
aiuvioc  &£ng,  "the  everlasting  God,"  Rom.  xvi,  26.  (2.) 
The  endless  life  and  blessedness  of  the  righteous  is  there- 
by defined.  '•  When  ye  fail  they  may  receive  you  et(  rag 
aiuviHi-  aKi/vac,  into  everlasting  habitations,"  Luke  xvi,  9. 
This  passage  is  cited  rather  than  manv  others,  because  it 
is  obviouslv  designed  to  distinguisli  between  that  which 
fails,  and  that  which  shall  not  fail.  Again  :  "  The  God 
of  all  grace  who  has  called  us  unto  his  atuviov,  eternal 
glory  after  that  ye  have  suffered,  o7.iyor,  for  a  short  sea- 
son," 1  Pet.  v,  10.  Here  also  the  word  is  used  to  distin- 
guish between  that  which  is  of  short  duration,  and  that 
which  has  no  end.  (3.)  It  is  used  to  point  out  the  dura- 
tion of  tlie  punishment  of  tlie  wicked,  viz.,  in  the  passages 
already  ([iiotcil,  where  it  is  translated,  of  course,  eternal 
or  everlasting.     (See  Matt,  xviii.  8  ;  xxv.  41,  46,  «kc.) 

Mr.  G.  is  aware  that  wiion  these  |)hrascs  are  applied  to 
God,  and  to  tlio  future  i)lcssedness  of  his  saints,  they  mean 


ETERNITY    OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  209 

an  eternity.  His  opinion,  however,  is,  that  th^  "  imply 
an  indefinite  duration,  which  borrows  its  length  from  the 
subject  to  which  they  are  appUed."  (Vol,  ii,  p.  224.)  If 
'this  were  the  case,  where  is  the  sense  of  speaking  so 
constantly  of  "  lasting  judgment,"  "  lasting  damnation," 
"  lasting  fire,"  and  "lasting  punishment?"  Here  is  an 
obvious  design  always  to  attach  to  these  important  things 
the  idea  of  their  duration.  But  the  word,  it  seems,  by 
which  tins  is  done,  is  a  word  which  makes  no  distinction 
between  a  moment  and  eternity.  "  It  means  endless," 
says  Mr.  G.,  "  only  when  the  subject  absolutely  requires, 
and  evidently  demonstrates,  that  this  undefined  time  has 
not,  and  cannot  have  any  limit."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  224.)  The 
length  of  that  duration  is,  according  to  him,  to  be  learned 
from  the  subject  to  which  the  epithet  is  applied.  But 
what  can  we  learn  of  the  duration  implied  in  the  indefi. 
nite  word  lasting,  from  the  subjects  to  which  it  is  applied 
in  the  cases  just  now  mentioned  ?  What  duration  is  to  be 
understood  from  the  subjects,  judgment,  damnation,  fire,, 
or  punishment  ?  None  at  all.  So  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles  are  to  be  supposed  to  speak  frequently  of  the 
duration  of  future  punishment  without  giving  us  any  idea 
whether  it  continue  one  day,  a  thousand  years,  or  through 
eternal  ages.  We  have,  however,  abundant  proof  that 
the  terms  and  phrases  in  question  have  a  definite  mean- 
ing  ;  and  that,  without  external  aid,  they  have  an  intrin-. 
sic  power  to  convey  the  idea  of  proper  eternity.  We 
appeal  to  the  following  passages : — 

(1.)  Of  the  phrase  etf  rov  aiuva,  for  ever.  ''We  have 
heard  out  of  the  law  that  Christ  abideth  eig  rov  aiuva,  for 
ever ;  and  how  sayest  thou,  The  Son  of  man  must  be  lift-, 
ed  up  1"  John  xii,  34.  "  And  the  servant  abideth  not  in 
the  house  eiq  tov  aiuva,  for  ever :  but  the  Son  abideth  eic 
Tov  aiuva,  for  ever,"  John  viii,  35.  "  And  the  world 
passeth  away,  and  the  lust  thereof :  but  he  that  doeth  the 
will  of  God  abideth  etc  tov  aituva,  for  ever,"  1  John  ii,  17. 
These  passages  need  no  comment.  In  each  of  them  the 
phrase  is  used,  independently  of  all  circumstances  to  de- 
cide th^ question  of  the  eternity  of  the  subject,  in  direct 
opposition  to  a  limited  duration. 

(2.)  Of  the  phrase  eig  r«f  atuvac  ruv  aiuvuv,  for  ever  and 
ever.     "  And  the  four  and  twenty  elders  fell  down  and 
18* 


210        KTERNITV  OV    FUTCRE  PUNISHMENT. 

worshipped  him  that  liveth  eig  raf  aiuvar  ruv  aiuvuv,  for 
ever  and  ever,"  Rev.  v,  14.  Here  we  have  no  mean  of 
aaceitaining  who  it  is  whom  they  worshipped,  but  that  he 
liveth  for  ever  and  ever.  The  phrase  must  therefore  con-' 
tain  in  itself  a  declaration  of  a  proper  eternity,  indepen- 
dent of  the  subject. 

(3.)  Of  the  epithet  cuuvior,  eternal.  "  The  things  which 
are  seen  are  temporal ;  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen 
are  aiuiia,  eternal,"  2  Cor.  iv,  18.  Here  again  the  word 
in  question  is  used  independently  to  distinguish  a  proper 
eternity  from  a  limited  duration.  Will  Mr.  G.  say, 
"  But  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  naturally  endless?" 
Then  why  all  this  dispute  ?  Are  not  the  future  punish- 
ments  of  the  wicked  unseen,  and  are  not  they  too  eternal  ? 

The  above  remarks  are  confirmed  by  the  authorities 
which  Mr.  G.  has  produced  for  a  ditierent  purpose. 

"  Parkhurst  observes  that  ajon  in  the  Septuagint  gene- 
rally answers  to  the  Hebrew  olam,  which  denotes  time 
hidden  from  man,  whether  definite  or  indefinite,  whether 
past  or  future."  He  then  quotes  Leigh  upon  the  Hebrew 
term  olam: — 1.  ''The  Hebrew  word  gnolani,  which  in- 
terpreters sometimes  render  ccternum,  sometimes  perpe- 
tuwii,  sometimes  sacidum,  designs  an  absolute  perpetuity, 
eternity,  when  it  is  affirmed  of  God,  or  other  eternal 
things.  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  215,  216.)  Here,  then,  it  is  granted 
that  when  these  words  are  api)lied  to  men  in  the  world  to 
come,  where  men  are  eternal,  it  implies  "  an  absolute  eter- 
nity."  2.  "  A  periodical  or  circumscribed  perpetuity  tor 
the  condition  of  the  thing,  when  it  is  affirmed  of  things 
mutable  in  their  own  nature."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  216.)  This  is 
precisely  what  we  contend  for:  (1.)  That  when  these 
phrases  are  used  concerning  present  things,  tliey  compre- 
bend  the  whole  of  their  present  existence  :  (2.)  That  when 
they  are  used  concerning  things  future,  they  compreiiend 
the  whole  of  their  future  existence. 

We  now  attend  to  Mr.  G.'s  objections: — 
1.  All  his  arguments  drawn  from  tb*^  application  of 
these  terms  to  present  things  prove  nothing  with  respect 
to  their  application  to  the  world  to  come.  A  volume  of 
quotations  therefore  oftiiiskind  answer  no  purpose.  The 
read<;r  will  best  understand  this  reply,  if  he  considers  that 
the  phrase  '•  as  long  as  you  live,"  when  applied  to  any 


ETEROTTY    OF    FUTURE    TUNISHMENT.  211 

individual,  is  equivalent  to  the  term  aiuv.  ^o\\  this 
phrase,  when  applied  to  the  present  life,  means  a  limited 
period  ;  but  this  does  not  hinder  that,  when  applied  to  the 
future  state  of  human  existence,  it  should  imply  an  un- 
limited period,  an  eternity. 

2.  There  is  no  weight  in  the  objection  taken  from  the 
use  of  the  plural.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  220.)  It  is  true,  there  can 
only  be  one  eternity  ;  but  there  have  been,  and  there  may 
still  be,  many  aeons  in  time.  Every  divine  dispensation 
is  an  aeon,  and  every  man's  natural  life  is  his  aeon ;  but 
the  dispensation  of  rewards  and  punishments,  and  the 
future  life  of  all  men,  is  but  one  aeon — an  eternity. 

3.  Nor  is  there  any  strength  in  the  objection,  that 
"  the  words  in  the  original  admit  of  a  preposition  :  as 
irpo  xpovuv  aiuvLuv  :"  (vol.  ii,  p.  221  :)  because  the  word 
aiuvioc,  we  have  already  granted,  does  not,  when  it  is  ap- 
plied  to  things  in  this  world,  properly  mean  eternal.  Our 
translators  have,  therefore,  very  justly  translated  that 
phrase,  "  before  the  world  began."  On  this  answer  we 
rely.  The  preposition  npo  is,  however,  sometimes  put  for 
"jTapa,  which  with  a  gentive  case  means  from. 

4.  "  But  the  words  in  the  original  admit  of  a  particle 
following  them,  which  denotes  a  time  after  that  denomi- 
nated everlasting.  '  The  Lord  shall  reign  for  ever  and 
over  ;'  literally,  according  to  the  Septuagint,  '  from  oeon 
to  oeon,  and  farther.'"  (Vol.  ii,  p.  221.)  To  this  we 
answer:  (1.)  That  the  words  do  not  need  any  particle 
to  add  to  their  meaning  ;  as  we  have  already  shown. 
(2.)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  do  not  make  use 
of  any  such  particle,  even  when  their  purpose  is  to  speak 
of  eternity  in  the  most  absolute  manner.  (3.)  The  use 
of  such  a  particle  does  not  prove  that  a  proper  eternity 
is  not  expressed  without  it.  We  often  say  "  for  ever — 
more  ;"  but  this  does  not  prove  that  we  mean  by  "  for 
ever,"  a  limited  duration. 

5.  Lastly.  "  The  very  strongest  expressions,"  for  ever 
and  ever,  "  are  used  to  denote  limited  duration."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  222.)  We  shall  examine  the  passages  which  Mr.  G. 
has  cited  in  proof  of  this. 

(1.)  "'So  shall  I  keep  thy  law  continually,  forever 
and  -ever,'  during  my  life.  Psalm  cxix,  44." 

Now,  how  is  it  proved  that  the  psalmist  does  not  keep 
the  law  of  God,  literally,  for  ever  and  ever  ? 


212  ETEUXITY    OF    FUTURE    rUXISIIMEIVT. 

(2.)  "  '  He  hath  also  estabHshed  them  (the  heavens)  for 
ever  and  ever,'  Psalm  cxlviii,  6.  Yet,  says  the  Apostle 
Peter,  are  the  heavens  '  reserved  unto  fire,  and  shall  pass 
away  with  a  great  noise,'  2  Peter  iii,  7,  10."* 

The  question  is.  Does  the  psalmist  speak  this  of  the 
visible  or  of  the  invisible  heavens  ?  Whichsoever  way 
this  question  is  answered,  it  will  not  make  against  the 
])receding  statement.  But  the  dithculty  of  answering 
this  question  renders  this  passage  a  very  improper  one 
for  determining  another  question  on  either  side. 

The  attentive  and  judicious  reader  will  observe  that 
throughout  the  whole  of  this  examination  we  have  found 
the  words  in  dispute  to  be  uniformly  used  according  to 
the  rule  at  first  laid  down,  without  one  exception.  It 
remains,  therefore,  that  our  translators,  who  were  not  so 
ignorant  of  Greek  as  the  Socinians  insinuate,  have  given 
the  proper  meaning  of  them,  and  that  whenever  those 
words  are  applied  to  the  invisible  world,  or  to  the  world 
to  come,  they  uniformly  express  a  proper  eternity. 

That  this  is  equally  true  in  respect  to  future  punish- 
ments, as  in  respect  to  future  rewards,  will  be  farther 
obvious  from  the  antithetical  connection  of  the  one  with 
the  other.  "  Some  shall  awake  to  everlasting  life,  and 
some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,"  Dan.  xii,  2. 
"  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but 
the  righteous  into  everlasting  life.  Matt,  xxv,  46.  These 
antitheses  would  be  very  improper  unless  the  word  were 
allowed  to  mean  the  same  duration  in  both  parts  of  the 
sentence. 

But  Mr.  G.  translates  tiu;  word  muvioc,  lasting;  and 
maintains  tliat  in  iK>th  parts  of  tiie  passage  this  is  its  pro- 
per meaning.  The  liltof  tlic  rigliteous'he  believes  to  be 
everlasting,  not  b(>eause  it  is  termed  a'onian  ;  but  because 
in  other  passages  he  meets  witii  assertions,  such  as  the 
following  : — "N<Mtlier  can  tliey  die  any  more."  "  It  (the 
body)  is  raised  in  incorruption."  "This  mortal  must  put 
on  immortality."     "  So  shall  we  be  iravTors,  ever  with  the 

♦  Thanks  to  Mr.  G.  for  this  concession !  So  the  heavens  which 
are  tube  (lostruyed  and  renewed,  are  the  visible  lieaveus.  Jesus 
Christ,  then,  who  "  makcili  nil  things  new,"  will  'create  a  new 
heaven  and  n  new  earth."  He  is  therefore  a  proper,  and  not  merely 
a  moral  Creator.     (See  pj).  G'MW.) 


ETERNITY   OF    FUTURE    rUNISIIMEXT.  213 

Lord."  "  An  inheritance  that  fadeth  not  a-wfiy,"  (kc. 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  217.)  We  do  not  intend  to  argue  precisely  in 
the  same  manner.  It  has  heen  proved  that  the  word  here 
means  everlasting.  We  shall  now  show  that  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  punishment  agrees  with  the  general  scope  of 
divine  revelation.  This  argument  divides  itself  into  seve- 
ral parts,  each  of  which  will  be  found  to  bear  on  the  ge- 
neral truth. 

1.  According  to  the  uniform  tenor  of  Scripture  the  pre- 
sent life  is  the  time  of  probation,  and  the  time  for  working 
out  our  salvation.  The  following  passages  will  serve  to 
prove  this : — 

"To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  heart, 
as  in  the  provocation,  and  in  the  day  of  temptation  in  the 
wilderness  :  when  your  fathers  tempted  me,  proved  me,  and 
saw  my  works,"  Psa.  xcv,  7-11  ;  Heb.  iii,  7-11.  What- 
soever thy  hand  tindeth  to  do,  do  it  with  thy  might ;  for 
there  is  no  work,  no  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom, 
in  the  grave  whither  thou  goest,"  Eccles.  ix,  10.  "  Seek 
ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  call  ye  upon  him  while 
he  is  near,"  Isa.  Iv,  6.  "  We,  then,  as  workers  together 
with  him,  beseech  you  also,  that  ye  receive  not  the  grace 
of  God  in  vain  :  for  he  saith,  I  have  heard  thee  in  a  time 
accepted,  and  in  the  day  of  salvation  have  I  succoured  tliee  : 
behold,  now  is  the  accepted  time  ;  behold,  now  is  the  day 
of  salvation,"  2  Cor.  vi,  1,  2.  "  Come,  for  all  things  are 
now  ready,"  Luke  xiv,  17.  "  Be  not  deceived,  God  is 
not  mocked :  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth  (here)  that 
shall  he  reap  (hereafter.)  For  he  that  soweth  to  his  flesh, 
(which  he  can  do  only  while  he  is  here,  in  the  flesh,)  shall 
of  the  flesh  reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  soweth  to  the 
Spirit,  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting.  And  let 
us  not  be  weary  in  well  doing  ;  for  in  due  season  (in 
the  time  of  harvest)  we  shall  reap  if  we  faint  not  (in  seed 
time.)  As  we  have  therefore  opportunity,  let  us  do  good 
unto  all  men,  (before  the  opportunity  slip,)  especially  unto 
them  who  are  of  the  household  of  faith,"  Gal.  vi,  7-10. 
A  clear  proof  that  tiiis  is  the  time  to  sow  to  the  Spirit, 
while  yet  we  are  connected,  not  only  with  the  household 
of  faith,  but  with  "  all  men." 

2.  As  this  is  the  time  to  work  out  our  salvation,  it  is 
the  only  time ;  and  they  who  neglect  it  will  be  excluded 


214       ETEKNITY  OF  FDTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     Such  is  the  language  of 
the  following  passages  : — 

"  So  I  swear  in  my  wrath,  they  shall  not  enter  into 
my  rest.  And  to  whom  sware  ho,  that  they  should  not 
enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them  that  believed  not  ?  So  we 
see  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  unbelief.  Let  us, 
therefore,  fear,  lest  a  promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into 
his  rest ;  any  of  you  should  seem  to  (should  actually) 
come  short  of  it,"  Heb.  iii,  11,  18,  19;  iv,  1.  "And 
Avhile  they  went  to  buy  the  bridegroom  came,  and  they 
that  were  ready  went  in  with  him  to  the  marriage :  and 
the  door  was  shut.  Afterward  came  also  the  other  vir- 
gins, saying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us.  But  he  answered 
and  said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  know  you  not,"  Matt, 
xxvi,  11,  12.  "Then  said  one  unto  liim,  Are  there  tew- 
that  be  saved  ?  And  he  said  unto  them,  Strive  to  enter  in 
at  the  strait  gate  :  for  many,  I  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to 
enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able.  When  once  the  Master 
of  the  house  is  risen  up,  and  hath  shut  to  the  door,  and  ye 
begin  to  stand  without,  and  to  knock  at  the  door,  saving. 
Lord,  Lord,  open  unto  us  ;  and  he  shall  answer  and  say 
unto  you,  I  know  you  not  whence  you  are, — Depart  from 
me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity.  There  shall  be  weeping 
and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  you  yourselves  thrust  out,"  Luke  xiii,  23-28. — 
"  Looking  diligently,  lest  any  man  fail  of  the  grace  of  God, 
lest  there  be  any  fornicator,  or  profane  person,  as  Esau, 
who  for  one  morsel  of  meat  sold  his  hirthriirht.  For  ye 
know  how  that  afterward,  when  he  would  have  inherited 
the  bli'ssing,  he  was  rejected ;  for  he  found  no  place  of 
repentance,  though  besought  it  carefully  with  tears,"  Heb. 
xii,  16,  17.  "  lie  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see 
life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abidelh  on  him."  John  iii,  36. 
♦'  I  say  unto  you,  that  none  of  those  men  which  were  bidden 
(and  refused  to  come)  shall  taste  of  my  supper,"  Luke  xiv, 
24.  "  I  go  my  way,  and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die 
in  your  sins:  whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come."  John  viii. 
21.  "  If  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou,  at  least  in  this  thy 
day,  the  liiiiigs  which  beloni;;  unto  thy  peace,  but  now  they 
are  hid  from  thine  eyes,"  Luke  xix,  42.  "Know  ye  nnt 
that   the  unrighteous   shall   not   inherit   the  kiniidom  of 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  rUNISHMENT.       215 

God?"  But  who  are  these  unrighteous  person;^?  They 
whose  sins  are  such  as  can  only  be  committed  in  this  life, 
and  whom  the  apostle  proceeds  to  des<-ribe  thus : — "  Be 
not  deceived  ;  neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  aduU 
terers,  nor  etTeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with 
mankind,  nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor 
revilers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  1  Cor.  vi,  9,  10.  "  He  that  is  unjust,  let  him  be 
unjust  still,  and  he  which  is  filthy  let  him  be  filthy  still," 
Rev.  xxii,  11. 

Now  the  Socinian  doctrine  with  which  these  passages 
are  contrasted  supposes  that  there  is  another  season  of  pro- 
bation  when  the  present  shall  be  at  an  end,  and  that  they 
who  neglect  the  present,  and  die  in  their  sins,  shall  after 
all  find  place  for  repentance  ;  that  they  shall  be  able  to 
enter  in  ;  that  they  shall  taste  of  the  supper  ;  that  they  shall 
see  life  ;  and  that  they  shall  finally  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God.  So  true  it  is  that  Christianity  is  one  thing,  and  So- 
cinianism  another.* 

3.  The  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  often  described  in 
such  a  manner  as  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  their 
"  final  restoration  to  virtue  and  happiness." 

(1.)  The  following  passages  describe  their  punish, 
ment  under  the  idea  of  burning. 

"  Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly  purge 
his  floor,  and  gather  his  wheat  into  his  garner ;  but  will 
burn  up  the  chaff"  with  unquenchable  fire,"  Matt,  iii,  12. 
"Gather  ye  together  first  the  tares,  and  bind  them  in  bun- 
dies  to  burn  them  ;  but  gather  the  wheat  into  my  barn," 
Matt,  xiii,  30.  "  For  it  is  impossible  for  them  who  were 
once  enlightened,  and  shall  fall  away,  to  renew  them 
again  to  repentance,  seeing  they  crucify  to  themselves  the 
Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame.  For 
the  earth  which  drinketh  in  the  rain  that  cometh  oft  upon 
it,  and  bringeth  forth  herbs  meet  for  them  by  whom  it  is 

*  To  these  might  properly  be  subjoined  those  passages  which 
declare  that  the  wicked  have  their  portion  in  this  life.  (See  Psalm 
xvii,  U  •  Luke  vi,  24;  xvi,  25.) 

Therfare  certain  passages  which  speak  of  some  sins  which  cannot 
be  forgiven  ;  but  as  these  are  not  directly  opposed  to  Mr.  G.'s  hy- 
pothesis, they  are  not  here  quoted  under  that  head.  The  following 
are  of  the  number:— Heb.  vi,  4:  x,  26,  27 :  Luke  xii,  10 ;  Mark  iii, 
38,29;  Matt,  xii,  31, 32. 


216  KXKRMTV    OF    KUTl'UK    rUNISHMENT. 

dressed,  i-eceiveth  blessing  from  God,  but  that  which 
beareth  thorns  and  briers  is  rejected,  and  is  nigh  unto 
cursing,  wliose  end  is  to  be  burned,"  Heb.  vi,  4-8. 

These  appropriate  representations  of  the  nature  and 
design  of  future  punishment  are  very  unfavourable  to  the 
Socinian  system.  The  burning  of  chaff  or  of  tares  is 
the  way  to  destroy  them  ;  but  not  to  convert  them  into 
wheat.  In  hke  manner,  the  burning  of  barren  and 
"  rejected"  ground  with  the  scorching  heat  of  the  sun,  and 
cursing  it  with  more  than  the  want  of  that  "  blessing  from 
God,"  is  not  the  way  to  render  it  fruitful.  And  this  is  the 
very  case  which  the  apostle  has  described,  the  giving  up 
to  perpetual  barrenness  a  tract  of  land  which  has  been 
cultivated  to  no  purpose  ;  or  in  other  words,  the  giving  up 
to  destruction  and  to  a  curse  those  whom  it  is  '•  impossible 
to  renew  again  to  repentance." 

(2.)  The  following  passages  describe  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked,  under  the  idea  of  destruction. 

"  Wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad  is  the  way,  tiiat  leadeth 
to  destruction,"  Matt,  vii,  13.  "  The  vessels  of  wrath 
fitted  for  destruction,"  Rom.  ix,  22.  "  Who  shall  be 
punished  witli  everlasting  destruction,"  2  Thcss.  i,  9. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  idea  of  destruction  is  perfectly 
irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  everlasting  blessedness,  and 
that  destruction  is  a  very  unlikely  mean  to  restore  man- 
kind to  virtue  and  bliss.  Yet  this  is  the  doctrine  which 
we  oppose,  viz.,  "  that  the  object  of  punishment  is  still  to 
guide  them  to  reformation  and  happiness."  (Vol.  ii,p.  200.) 
Destruction  is  as  likely  to  restore  the  sick  to  liealth,  as  the 
sinner  to  holiness. 

(3.)  The  following  passages  describe  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked,  under  the  idea  of  perdition^: — 

•' None  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition."  Joiin 
xvii,  12.  "  For  what  is  a  man  profited  if  he  shall  gain 
the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?"  Malt,  xvi,  26. 
"  If  our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  which  are  lost," 
2  Cor.  iv,  3. 

Now  if  the  wicked  in  hell  endure  only  a  fatherly  chas- 
tisement, they  are  no  more  lost  than  those  wliose  diseases 
are  not  incurable,  and  who  have  fallen  intothe  hands  of  a 
skilfid  and  aHectionate  physician  :  they  are  rather  found 
than  lost.     At  this  rate,  to  fall  is  to  rise ;  ruin  is  reco- 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       217 

very ;  damnation  is  salvation ;  and  perdition  is  re^ration. 
It  is  true,  "  The  Son  of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  was  lost."  "  A  man  may  be  lost  in  a  desert, 
and  yet  saved  in  fact ;  or  he  may  suffer  loss  and  yet  him- 
self be  saved  :  but  he  cannot  be  lost  (in  fact)  so  as  to  be 
cast  away,  and  yet  be  finally  saved  ;  for  these  are  perfect 
contraries."  (Fuller's  Fourth  Letter  to  Vidler.)  It  is 
also  true,  that  "he  that  loses  his  life  shall  find  it ;"  that  is, 
he  that  loses  his  natural  life  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  shall 
not,  in  the  end,  be  a  loser  ;  because  an  eternal  life  shall 
be  his  reward.  But  is  it  not  equally  true  that  "  whosoever 
will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it  ?"  in  other  words,  that  who- 
ever preserves  his  natural  life  by  the  neglect  of  his  duty, 
shall  lose  it,  and  shall  find  no  reward  in  the  life  to  come, 
but  shall  lose  eternal  life  ? 

(4.)  The  following  passages  describe  future  punish- 
ment under  the  idea  of  death  : — 

"  The  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  Rom.  vi,  23.  "  Knowing 
the  judgment  of  God,  that  they  which  commit  such  things 
are  worthy  of  death,"  Rom.  i,  32.  "  Sin,  when  it  is  finished, 
bringeth  forth  death,"  James  i,  15.  "  He  that  converteth 
the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul 
from  death,"  James  v,  20.  "  The  lake  of  fire.  This  is  the 
second  death.  And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in 
the  book  of  life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire,"  Rev.  xx, 
14,  1.5. 

By  what  mode  of  argumentation  is  it  to  be  proved  that 
death  is  the  mean  of  life?  It  is  true,  there  is  a  first  death, 
which  is  fo'lowed  by  a  first  resurrection,  and  over  those 
who  partake  that  resurrection  "  the  second  death  hath  no 
power."  But  Mr.  G.  stands  engaged  to  prove,  not  only 
that  death  shall  be  followed  by  life — that  there  will  be  a 
second  resurrection  of  those  who  are  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire,  which  is  the  second  death  ;  but  that  the  second 
death  is  the  mean  by  which  that  resurrection  shall  be 
accomplished.  If  there  be  any  meaning  in  words,  if 
burning,  destruction,  perdition,  and  death,  mean  any 
thing,  they  cannot  mean  a  salutary  and  temporary  chas- 
tisemenl. 

Upon  these,  and  such  terms  as  these,  Mr.  G.  thinks 
no  enlargement  necessary.     "  If  these  terms  are  to  be 
taken  literally,  (he  says,)  they  are  directly  opposite  to 
19 


218       ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

eternal  duration  in  torture ;  nor  can  any  hyperbole  or  figure 
make  them  accord  with  it."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  210.) 

(1.)  Mr.  G.  evidently  thinks  that  these  terms  involve 
the  idea  of  annihilation.  This  is  a  gross  mistake.  Com- 
bustion may  dissolve  the  present  construction  of  any 
combustible  matter,  hut  does  not  anniliilate  it.  A  build- 
ing may  be  destroyed ;  but  the  materials  of  it  are  not 
thereby  annihilated.  The  loss  of  any  thing  is  not  the 
annihilation  of  it.  A  man  may  be  lost  in  a  wilderness, 
in  a  pit,  or  in  the  country  of  an  enemy,  and  be  extremely 
•wretched,  who  does  not  therefore  lose  his  existence. — 
Death  is  not  annihilation  :  it  may  put  an  end  to  the 
beauty,  the  vigour,  the  enjoyment  of  the  body,  but  cannot 
reduce  it  to  nothing. 

(2.)  Mr.  G.  must  either  apply  these  terms  to  the 
nature  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  or  to  the  result 
and  conclusion  of  it.  If  he  apply  them  to  tiie  nature  of  it, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  according  to  him  it  is  a  lasting 
punishment ;  but  on  whatever  principles  he  supposes  the 
meaning  of  them  to  be  reconciled  with  any  duration,  on 
the  same  principles  it  is  reconcilable  with  endless  du- 
ration. If  a  lasting  punishment  may  with  propriety  be 
termed  a  lasting  burning,  a  lasting  destruction,  a  lasting 
perdition,  or  a  lasting  death  ;  an  "  everlasting  punish- 
ment" mav,  with  equal  propriety,  be  termed  an  "  everlast- 
ing i)urning,"  an  "  everlasting  destruction,"  an  everlasting 
perdition,  or  an  everlasting  death.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
Mr.  G.  apply  these  terms  to  the  result  and  conclusion  of 
future  punishment,*  he  cannot  reconcile  them  with  "  final 
reformation  and  hap|)iness  ;"  because  to  be  burned  in  hell 
is  not  to  be  blessed  in  heaven  ;  destruction  is  not  restora- 
tion ;  perdition  is  not  salvation  ;  and  death  is  not  everlast- 
ing life. 

♦  It  is  not  easy  to  sny  which  of  these  opinions  he  adopts.  Per- 
hnps  he  adopts  cither,  pro  Imiporv,  just  as  serves  a  presciii  piirpase. 
On  one  occasion  he  snys,  when  "it-is  most  peremptorily  ntfirmed 
that  the  wicked  shall  reap  cornipiion,  perish,  be  desiroyid,  and  die 
a  second  tijne,"  these  expressions  "  fix  the  sense  of  the  word  lasting, 
limitin^jiismcaninfjtonn  ai,'e."  (Vol.  ii,p^'2*JH.)  In  another  place  he 
says,  "The  second  death  is  to  constitute  their  stale  of  snttcrin;;." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  -73.)  But  inconsistency  i*  the  necessary  result  of  want 
of  system,  and  of  opposition  to  the  aoclrines  of  the  gospel. 


ETERNITY    OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  219 

4.  The  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  f^/equently 
represented  as  without  remedy. 

"  He  that,  being  often  reproved,  hardeneth  his  neck, 
shall  suddenly  be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy," 
Prov.  xxix,  1.  "  Because  there  is  wrath,  beware  lest  he 
take  thee  away  with  his  stroke,  then  a  great  ransom  cannot 
deliver  thee,"  Job  xxxvi,  18.  "  He  shall  have  judgment 
without  mercy,  that  hath  showed  no  mercy,"  James  ii, 
13.  "  Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  refused,  I  have 
stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded  ;  but  ye 
have  set  at  naught  all  my  counsel,  and  would  none  of  my 
reproof:  I  also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity,  I  will  mock 
when  your  fear  cometh.  When  your  fear  cometh  as  deso- 
lation, and  your  destruction  cometh  as  a  whirlwind  ;  when 
distress  and  anguish  cometh  upon  you  ;  then  shall  they 
call  upon  me,  but  I  will  not  answer  ;  they  shall  seek  me 
early,  but  they  shall  not  find  me,"  Prov.  i,  24-28.  "  And 
beside  all  this,  between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf 
fixed  :  so  that  they  which  would  pass  from  hence  cannot ; 
neither  can  they  pass  to  us  that  would  come  from  thence," 
Luke  xvi,  26. 

The  following  passages  of  the  same  order  will  need  a 
little  explanation  : — 

"  He  will  burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquenchable  fire," 
Matt,  iii,  12.  "If  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off:  it  is 
better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than,  having  two 
hands,  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be 
quenched  :  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched,"  Mark  ix,  43,  44,  &c.  The  same  words  are 
twice  repeated.  Here  are  two  strong  expressions,  the  one 
asserting  that  the  fire  is  unquenchable  ;  the  other  that  it 
is  not  quenched.     Now  let  ua  hear  Mr.  G. 

(1.)  "  Here  it  is  obvious  to  remark  that  the  duration 
is  asserted,  not  of  the  sufierer,  but  of  the  instruments  of 
his  suffering  or  punishment.  It  is  not  said  that  the  person 
of  the  culprit  shall  never  perish,  but  that  the  fire  and  the 
worm  died  not,  being  ever  in  constant  readiness  to  seize 
their  victim."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  232.) 

"  Here  it  is  obvious  to  remark  :"  [1.]  That  when  Mr. 
G.  states,  "  It  is  not  said  that  the  person  of  the  culprit 
shall  never  perish,"  he  speaks  ambiguously.  Does  he 
mean  to  say  that  "  the  person  of  the  culprit  shall  be  annihi- 


220       ETERNITy  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

lated  ?"  Then  what  becomes  of  this  "  final  reformation 
and  happiness  ?"  [2.]  That  lie  grants,  "  the  fire  and  the 
worm  died  not."  [3.]  That  he  grants,  "they  are  ever 
in  constant  readiness  to  seize  their  victim  :"  but  to  what 
purpose  when  they  have  no  victim  to  seize?  [4.]  That 
the  worm  and  the  fire  remain  for  no  purpose,  if  "  the  cul- 
prit"  do  not  continue  to  feel  them.  They  are  no  longer 
"  the  instruments  of  punishment,"  when  no  one  is  punished 
by  them  ;  nor  can  they  be  any  longer  terrible  than  while 
the  "culprit"  is  likely  to  suffer  by  tliem.  At  this  rate  the 
never  dying  worm,  and  tlie  unquenchable  fire,  are  but  a 
chimera.  [5,]  That  our  Lord  denominated  the  worm  their 
worm.  But  it  cannot  be  denominated  their  worm  any 
longer  than  it  preys  upon  them.  [6.]  That  the  analogy 
between  the  representative  and  the  thing  represented  is 
lost,  unless  the  worm  die  soon  after  it  has  devoured  or  lost 
its  prey,  and  unless  the  fire  be  quenched  when  its  fuel  is 
consumed.  Now,  our  Lord  indubitably  intended  to  repre- 
sent the  culprit  as  the  prey  of  the  worm,  and  the  chaff  as 
the  fuel  of  the  fire.  If,  therefore,  the  worm  die  not,  the 
sinner  will  continue  its  prey  ;  and  if  the  fire  be  not 
quenched,  the  chaff' will  continue  to  be  its  fuel. 

(2.)  "  It  should  be  kept  in  mind,  (Mr.  G.  subjoins,) 
that  the  duration  even  of  these  instruments  of  punislunent 
was  not  eternal,  but  only  for  a  length  of  ages,  for  the  worm 
is  dead,  and  the  fire  has  actually  been  quenched."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  232.) 

Then  let  the  transgressors  rejoice  and  be  exceeding 
glad !  There  is  now  no  danger  of  everlasting  fire  ;  for 
"  the  length  of  ages"  is  already  past. — But  stop  !  Has  not 
Mr.  G.  just  been  saying  tliat  "the  fire  and  the  worm  died 
not,  being  ever  in  constant  readiness  to  seize  their  vie- 
tim  ?"  What  wonder,  then,  (hat  he  should  boldly  contra- 
dict Jesus  Christ,  when  he  does  not  even  reverence  him- 
self? Our  Lord  has  said,  "  When  the  Son  of  man  sliall 
come  in  his  glory,  he  shall  sit  u[)un  the  throne  of  his  glory, 
and  sliall  say  unto  them  on  his  left  hand.  Depart  from 
me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire."  That  fire,  therefore, 
is  not  yet. quenched. 

(3.)  "But  hell  fire,  (jfnia  r«  irvpoc,  the  hell  of  fire,)  is 
the  fire  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  214.) 

No,  it  is  not.     The  phrase  may  be  used  in  allusion  to 


ETERNITY    OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  221 

that  fire,  but  hell  fire  is  "  the  lake  of  fire  which  is  the 
second  death  :"  "  the  fire  prepared  for  the  devil^and  his 
angels."  The  fire  of  that  valley  is  long  ago  quenched  ; 
but  our  Lord  threatens  the  wicked  with  another  hell  of  fire. 
"  Whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of 
TTiv  yeevvav  r«  Trupof,  the  hell  of  fire,"  Matt.  V,  22.  See 
also  Matt,  v,  29  ;  x,  28  ;  Luke  xii,  5  ;  Luke  xxiii,  33. 
And  that  is  the  fire  which  our  Lord  declares  shall  not  be 
quenched. 

(4.)  "  But  the  expression  is  taken  from  the  last  verse 
of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  where  the  prophet  predicts  the 
dispersion  of  the  Jews,  and  the  new  era,  or  Christian  dis- 
pensation, into  which  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  233.) 

That  the  words  of  Isaiah  have  no  deeper  meaning  than 
the  temporal  destruction  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  wants 
some  proof.  It  is  generally  more  proper  to  interpret  the 
language  of  the  prophets  by  that  of  our  Lord,  than  to  in- 
terpret  the  words  of  our  Lord  by  those  of  the  prophets. — 
But  whatever  the  prophet  meant,  the  meaning  of  our  Lord 
is  obvious.  The  latter,  when  he  speaks  of  the  never 
dying  worm  and  the  unquenchable  fire,  makes  a  contrast 
between  "  entering  into  life,"  or,  as  he  afterward  speaks, 
entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  being  "  cast  into 
hell  fire :  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched."  We  need  not  add  that  the  "  unquenchable 
fire,"  in  which  the  chaff"  shall  be  burned,  is  not  a  temporal 
but  a  future  punishment.  We  proceed  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  next : — 

"  The  Son  of  man  goeth,  as  it  is  written  of  him  :  but 
wo  unto  that  man  by  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed  ! 
It  had  been  good  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born," 
Matt,  xxvi,  24. 

The  argument  commonly  founded  on  these  words  is 
plain  and  conclusive.  If  Judas  should,  at  any  future  pe- 
riod, be  restored  to  "  virtue  and  eternal  happiness,"  as  there 
is  no  assignable  proportion  between  time  and  eternity,  it 
would  be  good  for  him  that  he  was  born.  The  words  of 
our  Lord  are,  therefore,  perfectly  inconsistent  with  such 
d  restoration. 

Mr.  G.  is  aware  of  this,  and  therefore  does  not  deny 
that  the  argument  is  conclusive,  but  attempts  to  remove 
19* 


222  ETEKNI-rV   Of    ftJTtJRi:    PUMSHMEN'T. 

the  foundation  of  it  by  a  new  translation  of  the  passage. 
The  literal  translation,  he  says,  is,  "  Good  were  it  for 
him,  if  that  man  had  not  been  born."  Ho  then  applies 
the  expression,  "  that  man,"  not  to  Judas,  but  "  to  Jesus." 
(Vol.  ii,p.  231.)  Ifthisbe  just,  the  argument  falls  of  course. 
But  it  falls  alone.   We  beg  leave,  however,  to  demur. 

(1.)  Our  Lord  begins  with  speaking  of  himself,  as 
the  Son  of  man;"  but  of  Judas  he  speaks  in  the  first 
instance,  as  "  that  man."  When  he  speaks,  of  himself  a  se- 
cond time,  he  still  styles  himself"  the  Son  of  man."  When 
therefore  he  speaks  of  "  that  man"  a  second  time,  he 
means  not  himself,  whom  throughout  he  styles  "  the  Son 
of  man,"  but  of  Judas,  of  whom  he  had  begun  to  speak  as 
"  that  man." 

(2.)  When  Mr.  G.  began  to  translate  the  passage  lite- 
rally,  he  ought  to  have  done  so  altogether.  It  would  then 
stand  thus  : — "  Good  it  were  av-u,  for  himself,  if  that  man 
had  not  been  born."  The  sense  is  then  precisely  what 
our  translators  have  given.  They  have  changed  only 
the  idiom.  So  true  it  is  that  those  men  once  understood 
Greek. 

5.  Lastly.  The  state  of  punishment  is  represented  as 
the  final  state  of  impenitent  sinners. 

"  Ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart  (says  St.  Paul  to  the 
Romans)  that  form  of  doctrine  which  was  delivered  you. 
Now,  being  made  free  from  sin,  and  become  servants  to 
God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness  ;  and  the  end,  ever- 
lasting life,"  Rom.  vi,  17,  22.  But  "what  shall  the 
end  be  of  them  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  God  ?" 
1  Peter  iv,  17.  The  answers  are  ready  :  tlieir  end  shall 
"  be  according  to  their  works,"  2  Cor.  xi,  15.  "  Whose 
end  is  to  be  burned,"  Heb.  vi,  8.  "  Whose  end  is  de- 
struction," Phil,  iii,  19.  "  For  the  end  of  these  things  is 
death,"  Rom.  vi,  21.  No  argument  is  necessary  liere 
but  that  of  Mr.  G.,  who  says,  "We  are  absolutely 
obliged,  if  the  next  state  is  iinal,  as  we  would  not  set  the 
Scripture  at  odds  witli  itself,  to  understand  tlie  word 
fKoiiian,  everlasting,  when  joined  with  the  life  of  tlie  rigiit- 
eous,  (or  the  deatii  of  the  wicked,)  in  the  endless  sense." 
(Vol.  ii,"p.  227.) 

The  result  of  all  this  reasoning  is,  that  the  future  pun- 
ishment  of  the  wicked,  according  to  the  uniform  language 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       223 

of  Scripture,  will  be  eternal.  To  this  result,  though  not 
onl)^  fairly  deduced  from  Scripture,  but  directl^iand  re- 
peatedly  affirmed  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles,  Mr. 
G.  and  the  Socinians  have  many  objections.  However 
we  may  be  persuaded  that  it  is  founded  in  truth,  we  must 
examine  how  far  it  is  affected  by  his  assault.  His  objec- 
tions are  of  two  kinds :  the  first  are  philosophical,  the 
second  are  scriptural.  As  we  do  not  allow  to  abstract 
reasonings  on  divine  subjects  that  importance  which  Mr. 
G.  attaches  to  them,  we  shall  consider, 

I.  His  scriptural  objections. 

1.  In  examining  what  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning 
a  future  state,  Mr.  G.  pursues  the  subject  much  at  length, 
and  with  considerable  propriety,  until  he  finds  the  wicked 
finally  separated  from  the  righteous,  and  "  cast  into  a  lake 
of  fire,  which  is  the  second  death."  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  272, 273.) 
He  then  with  vast,  but  fruitless  labour  endeavours  to  prove 
that  as  the  first  death  is  followed  by  a  resurrection,  there 
■will  also  be  a  second  resurrection  of  those  who  are  "  hurt 
by  the  second  death."  Now  for  the  proof,  which  must 
be  clear  and  cogent.     We  follow  him  step  by  step. 

''  The  terms  used  relating  to  this  second  death  are  pre- 
cisely  the  same,  (as  are  used  concerning  the  death  of  the 
bodj',)  and  many  of  them  imply  another  resurrection." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  273.)  The  proof! — "  The  principal  term  used 
is  '  fire.'  Now  the  eft'ect  of  fire,  as  generally  used  in 
comparison,  is  to  purify."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  274.)  Sometimes 
it  is  ;  but  not  always.  It  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the 
subject  to  be  burned.  "  Gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones," 
are  purified  in  the  fire  ;  but  "  wood,  hay,  and  stubble"  are 
consumed  by  it.  The  question  therefore  is,  Do  the  Scrip- 
tures  ever  borrow  their  ideas  of  the  punishments  of  hell 
from  the  purification  of  any  thing  by  fire?  Mr.  G.  will 
find  the  passage  if  possible.  "  When  therefore  the  wicked 
are  compared  to  '  fuel  for  fire,'  to  chaff",  tares,  withered 
branches,  &;c.,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  such  fuel 
neither  continues  burning  without  end,  nor  is  annihilated. 
Its  state  is  changed  by  the  action  of  the  fire."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  274-^  Sensible  men  know  that  a  proof  derived  from  a 
scriptural  metaphor,  pursued  beyond  the  line  to  which  the 
Scriptures  pursue  it,  is  always  at  best  but  of  a  dubious 
kind.     It  is  a  universal  rule  that  the  metaphor,  however 


224      ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

far  pursued,  must  not  be  changed.  For  this  reason  we 
ask,  Did  any  man  ever  think  of  making  worthless  wood 
"  fuel  for  fire,"  to  render  it  fit  for  building  a  temple  /  of 
burning  chaff,  or  tares,  to  convert  them  into  wheat?  or  of 
casting  "  withered  branches"  into  the  fire,  to  make  them 
fruitful?  Yet,  on  such  a  distortion  of  scriptural  metaphors 
hangs  all  the  hope  which  Mr.  G.  administers  to  the 
damned  ! 

But  he  proceeds  :  "  The  very  expression  of  a  first 
resurrection  implies  a  second  resurrection  of  those  over 
whom  the  second  death  hath  power."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  274.) 
The  book  of  Revelation  does  speak  of  a  second  resurrec- 
tion ;  but  not  of  a  resurrection  of  the  damned  from  hell. 
In  Rev.  XX,  6,  it  is  said,  "  Blessed  and  holy  is  he  that  hath 
part  in  the  first  resurrection,  they  shall  be  priests  of  God 
and  of  Christ,  and  shall  reign  with  him  a  thousand  years." 
After  these  thousand  years  are  expired  comes  the  second 
resurrection:  verses  13-15.  "And  the  sea  gave  up  the 
dead  which  were  in  it ;  and  death  and  hades  delivered  up 
the  dead  which  were  in  them  :  and  they  were  judged  every 
man  according  to  their  works.  And  whosoever  was  not 
written  in  the  book  of  life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire. 
This  is  the  second  death."  So  the  second  death  follows 
the  second  resurrection, — the  resurrection  of  all  the  dead. 
Where  now  is  the  resurrection  from  the  second  death  to 
be  found  ?  But  "  the  state  also  in  which  they  are  placed 
is  to  undergo  a  similar  change."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  275.)  Not 
so.  The  state  from  which  they  are  brouglit  to  judgment 
— "deatli  and  hades"  which  deliver  up  the  dead,  "  are  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire,  which  is  the  second  death."  But 
when  is  the  lake  of  fire  to  bo  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  ? 
When  is  the  second  death  to  die?  Rev. /xx,  13-15.  '"This 
will  constitute  the  supreme  and  last  victory  otJesus  Christ." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  27(j.)  Not  thiMJcstruction  ol"  the  lake  of  fire, 
but  of  the  first  death,  nnd  of  liades.  Mr.  G.  alludes  to 
1  Cor.  XV.  Now  the  whole  of  that  chapter  speaks  of  the 
resurrection  of  tlie  bodies  of  "  those  who  are  Christ's  at 
his  coming."  "  When  this  mortal  (body)  shall  have  put 
on  immortality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying 
that  is  written.  Death  is  .swallowed  up  in  victory.  O 
death,  where  is  thy  sting?  O  acJj;,  hades,  where  is  thy 
victory,"  1  Cor.  xv,  54-57.     This  chapter  therefore  shuts 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       225 

up  the  damned  in  despair,  for  "  the  last  enemy  th«t  shall 
be  destroyed  is  (the  first)  death."  But  the  lake  of  fire 
into  which  that  is  cast,  the  second  death,  still  remains. — 
Now  Mr.  G.  may  "  know  how  these  positive  assurances 
are  parried,  and  the  argument  evaded  ;"  (vol.  ii,  p.  278  ;) 
and  that  this  defeat  decides  the  fate  of  Socinianism. 

2.  He  does  not  think  it  necessary  to  argue  much  from 
Scripture  authority,  on  the  divine  attributes  of  wisdom, 
justice,  and  goodness,  because  he  is  so  much  more  at 
home  in  arguing  philosophically  on  such  topics.  He  con- 
descends, however,  to  remind  us  that  it  is  an  eminent 
Christian  duty  to  "  imitate  the  unconfined  benevolence  of 
Deity."  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  279,  280.)  We  will  take  for  granted 
that  by  "  unconfined  benevolence"  he  means  benevolence 
to  all  men.  But  why  no  mention  of  the  imitation  of  his 
justice?  We  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Christ  has  said,  "  Be 
ye,  therefore,  merciful,  as  your  Father  is  merciful.  Judge 
iiut,  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged."  Mr.  G.  certainly  does 
not  suppose  that  all  judgment  of  each  other  is  to  be  avoid- 
ed, an)'  more  than  that  God  promises  that  we  shall  in  no 
sense  bo  judged.  We  are  forbidden  to  judge  and  condemn 
each  other,  (1.)  because  we  cannot  always  judge  aright, 
and  may  possibly  condemn  the  innocent  :  (2.)  because  we 
have  not  authority  to  judge  and  condemn,  but  ought  to 
refer  many  things  to  the  Judge  of  all.  "  Dearly  beloved, 
avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place  unto  wrath, 
for  it  is  written.  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,"  Rom. 
xii,  19.  Our  being  forbidden  to  take  vengeance  does  not 
imply  that  God  will  not,  but  rather  that  he  will,  take  ven- 
geance. There  are,  however,  proper  persons,  who  ought 
to  imitate,  in  their  sphere,  even  the  justice  of  God  :  "  the 
ministers  of  God,  who  bear  not  the  sword  in  vain  ;  re- 
vengers to  (execute)  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil," 
Rom.  xiii,  4.  These  are  taught  to  administer  retributive 
justice,  in  distant  imitation  of"  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth." 

3.  Mr.  G.  next  '•  considers  some  of  the  parables  of  our 
Saviour."  "The  person  who  is  not  reconciled  to  his 
brother,  shall  not  be  discharged  till  he  has  paid  the  last 
farthing.'  (Vol.  ii,  p.  280.)  Certainly  a  debtor  cannot  in 
justice  be  imprisoned  any  longer  than  while  his  debt  is 
unpaid.  When,  therefore,  our  sins  are  spoken  of  under  the 
idea  of  debts,  such  language  must  be  held.     But,  then,  the 


226       ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

imprisonment  of  a  debtor,  however  long  it  may  continue, 
does  nothing  toward  the  payment  of  his  debt.  It,  therefore, 
lies  upon  Mr.  G.,  if  he  argues  thus,  to  show  by  what  means 
a  debtor  in  the  prison  of  hell  is  to  pay  the  debt  of  sin. — 
The  truth  is,  that  his  inference  is  only  the  abuse  of  a  me- 
taphor. Our  Lord  has  nowhere  spoken  of  the  actual 
payment  of  the  debt  of  sinners,  nor  of  their  release  from 
punishment ;  but  has  in  this  metaphorical  language  assured 
us  that  a  sinner  shall  receive  the  punisliment  due  to  his 
crimes.  Of  the  duration  or  end  of  that  punishment,  he 
has  here  said  nothing. 

"  Dives  is  represented  as  immediately  beginning  to 
improve  as  soon  as  his  punishment  commences.'.'  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  281.)  Is  this  perfectly  clear  from  his  wishing  "  his 
brethren  to  be  warned  ?"  Not  unless  it  can  be  made  to 
appear  that  before  that  time  he  wished  tliem  to  go  to  that 
place  of  torment.  jMigiit  not  this  wish  proceed,  as  is 
generally  supposed,  from  an  appreliension  that  tlie  pcrdi- 
tion  of  his  brethren  would  increase  his  misery  ?  But  if  Mr. 
G.'s  hypothesis  be  just,  Dives  must  by  this  time  be  so 
much  improved  as  to  have  passed  the  impassable  gulf. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  conclusion  is  perfectly  arbitrary,  and 
that  Mr.  G.  administers  to  Dives  a  consolation  which 
father  Abraham  refused.  That  which  Mr.  G.  administers 
would  have  been  more  than  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his 
tongue. 

4.  Again  :  "  The  punishments  of  the  Jews  are  repre- 
sented as  evils,  tending  to  produce  greater  good  in  them- 
selves."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  281.)  One  example,  at  least,  might 
have  been  given,  that  we  might  judge  whether  they  were 
punishments  or  chastisements.  We  give  one  of  an  oppo- 
site kind  :  "  And  men  were  scorched  \iith  great  iieat,  and 
blasphemed  tlie  name  of  CJod,  which  hath  power  over 
these  plagues  ;  and  repented  not  to  give  bim  glory,"  Uev. 
xvi,  9.  Nay,  we  can  find  such  an  example  among  the 
Jews  :  "  Why  should  ye  bo  stricken  any  more  ?  Ye  will 
revolt  more  and  moro,"  Isa.  i,  5.  Rut  if,  t)n  the  other 
hand,  a  thousand  instances  could  be  given,  of  the  benefits 
accruing  from  the  chastisement  of  those  who  are  in  a 
state  of  probation,  they  would  |)rove  just  nothing  with  re- 
spect to  tlie  effects  of  the  punishment  of  those  who  aro 
gone  to  the  place  of  retribution. 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       227 

5.  Mr.  G.  has  quoted  Rom.  v,  12-21,  the  sum  St  which 
»s,  "  Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound  ; 
that  as  sin  reigned  unto  death,  so  might  grace  reign  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ."  He  has 
deduced  no  argument  from  it,  but  undoubtedly  expects  the 
reader  to  inter  from  it,  that  every  soul  must  be  finally 
restored.  The  reader  will  draw  his  inference  just  accord, 
ing  to  his  previous  opinion.  We  observe,  however:  (1.) 
That  as  all  the  blessings  mentioned  in  this  passage  de- 
pend upon  "  Jesus  Christ,"  they  cannot  belong  to  those 
who  "  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring  on 
themselves  swift  destruction."  (2.)  That  the  blessings 
here  described  belong  to  those  who  "  receive  abundance 
of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness,''  verse  17.  But 
what  does  this  prove  concerning  those  who  "  receive  the 
grace  of  God  in  vain,"  2  Cor.  vi,  1  ;  and  who  "  have  not 
submitted  to  the  righteousness  (which  is  the  gift)  of  God?" 
Rom.  X,  3.  (3.)  That  one  of  the  blessings  here  men- 
tioned  is,  "  of  many  offences  unto  justification,"  verse  16, 
or  "justification  of  life,"  verse  18.  But  what  does  that 
prove  concerning  those  who  die  in  their  sins,  and  are  final- 
ly condemned  to  the  second  death  ?  who  "  shall  not  see 
life,"  John  iii,  36  ;  in  a  word,  whom  Mr.  G.  supposes  not 
to  be  justified,  but  to  be  finally  condemned  ?  (4.)  That 
one  of  the  blessings  here  mentioned  is,  that  certain  per- 
sons "  shall  much  more  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ," 
verse  17,  whereas  Mr.  G.  himself  grants  that  the  wicked, 
at  the  best,  shall  much  less  reign  in  life  :  that  they  will 
be  "  for  ever  excluded  from  the  society  of  the  righteous." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  278.)  So  much  easier  it  was  for  Mr.  G.  to 
quote  this  passage  than  to  extract  from  it  his  doctrine ! 

6.  Mr.  G.  next  attempts  to  establish  the  doctrine  of 
universal  restoration.  For  this  purpose  he  quotes  the 
following  scriptures  : — 

(1.)  Rom.  viii,  12-23.  St.  Paul  says  that  "the  crea- 
ture  itselfshall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption, 
into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God."  These 
are  the  w^ds  which  Mr.  G.  marks  as  emphatical.  Now 
he  says  that  "  the  wicked  will  be  for  ever  excluded  from 
the  society  of  the  righteous,  the  Christian  society."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  278. )  If  so,  they  cannot  be  restored  to  "  the  glo- 
rious liberty  of  the  children  of  God."     The  passage  does  " 


228       ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

not,  therefore,  and  cannot  refer  to  them.  Nor  can  it  by 
any  fair  means  be  made  to  support  any  scheme  of  uni- 
versal salvation  or  restoration.  The  apostle  speaks  of  the 
accomplishment  of  this  deliverance,  as  taking  place  on 
"the  n)anifestation  of  the  sons  of  God,"  verse  19.  This 
"  manifostation"  he  calls  "  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  re- 
demption of  our  body,"  verse  23.  Now  the  time  of  the 
redemption  of  the  bodies  of  the  saints  is  previous  to  the 
universal  judgment  ;  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  justly 
supposed  to  be  the  time  of  universal  restoration.  Per- 
haps  the  passage  is  best  explained  by  the  words  of  St. 
Peter,  where  he  speaks  of  "  the  production  of  new  heavens, 
and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness,"  2  Pet. 
iii,  13. 

(2.)  That  all  things  might  be  gathered  in  one  Christ." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  284.)  For  the  reason  just  mentioned,  this 
passage  cannot  answer  Mr.  G.'s  purpose.  The  wicked 
are  not  to  be  made  one  society  (body)  with  the  righteous. 
Beside  this,  St.  Paul's  words  are,  "  That  in  the  fulness 
of  times  avaKeda'/.aiuaaadai,  he  may  bring  all  things  again 
under  a  head,  or  sum  up  all  things,  in  Christ,  whether 
things  in  heaven,  or  things  on  earth,"  Eph.  i,  10.  Now 
the  fulness  of  times  are  the  times  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation. "  When  the  fulness  of  time  was  come,  God  sent 
forth  his  Son,"  Gal.  iv,  4.  Again  :  the  apostle  makes  no 
mention  of  things  in  hell ;  but  only  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  on  earth. 

(3.)  I  saw  every  creature  in  heaven,  in  earth,  under 
tlie  earth,  and  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  were  in  them,  praising 
(iod."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  Is  this  to  prove  that,  instead  of 
''  weeping,  and  wailing,  and  gnashing  of  teeth,"  both  men 
and  devils  will  praise  God  in  hell?  This  would  bo  an  in- 
novation in  the  kingdom  of  darkness  !  But  creatures  in 
hell  are  not  mentioned.  If  tiiis  be  not  the  design  with 
which  it  is  cited,  it  cannot  answer  Mr.  G.'s  purpose. 

Before  we  proceed,  the  reader  will  remark  that  the  ad- 
vocates  for  the  limitation  of  .future  punishment  generally 
distinguish  between  universal  restoration  and  universal 
salvatfon.  Mr.  G.  has  now  declared  himself  for  restora- 
tion. We  must  not,  however,  look  for  consistency. — 
He  endeavours  to  take  every  advantage  of  those  scrip- 
tures which   speak  of  the  salvation  of  mankind.     The 


ETERNITY    OF    irTURE    PU-NISHMENti  229 

scriptural  term,  salvation,  has  a  meaning  very  different 
from  that  which  Mr.  G.  wishes  to  attach  to  it     To  be 

saved,  in  scripture,  is  the  reverse  of  being  condemned. 

"  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  beheveth 
not  shall  be  damned,"  Mark  xvi,  16.  But  our  opponent 
means  by  it  a  perfectly  different  thing,— a  restoration  to 
virtue  and  happiness,  subsequent  to  the  execution  of  a 
sentence  of  righteous  condemnation.  After  this  observa- 
tion  we  proceed  : 

(4.)  ''God  our  Saviour,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  282.)  How  does  it  appear  that  this  passage  relates 
to  the  damned  in  hell .'  Are  they  saved,  or  damned  ?  Does 
not  St.  Paul  explain  himself,  when,  in  the  context,  he  calls 
on  his  brethren  to  "  pray  for  all  men  (on  earth)  that  they 
may  be  saved,"  and  declares  that  "  for  this  purpose  he 
was  appointed  a  preacher  and  an  apostle,  teacher  of  the 
Gentiles,  in  faith  and  truth  ;"  viz.,  that  they  might  be 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ?  But  if  Mr.  G.'s 
works  correspond  with  his  faith,  he  has  undoubtedly  re- 
vived the  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  labours  incessantly 
to  obtain  for  his  departed  friends  a  deliverance  from 
purgatory. 

(5.)  "  The  glad  tidings  are  proclaimed  to  every  crea- 
ture which  is  under  heaven."  (Vol.  ii,  p,  284.)  'True  : 
and  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  Mark  xvi,  16. 

(6.)  "  To  make  all  men  see  the  fellowship  of  the  mys- 
tery,  which  had  been  hidden."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  For 
this  purpose,  Paul  says,  "  This  grace  was  given  to  him, 
to  preach  among  tiie  Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of 
Christ,"  Eph.  ii,  8  :  but  certainly  not  in  hell.  Where  is 
that  written  ? 

(7.)  "  To  reconcile  all  things  to  himself."  (Vol.  ii.  p. 
285.)  The  apostle  continues,  «  whether  they  be  thino-s 
in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven,"  Col.  i,  28 ;  but  of  things 
in  hell,  he  says  nothing.  '^ 

(8.)  "  The  grace  of  God,  which  bringeth  salvation 
halh  appeared  to  all  men."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  This  pas. 
sage  would  much  better  prove  that  all  men  will  be  saved  on 
earth,  than  that  they  will  be  restored  from  hell ;  for  on 
earth   the  apostle's  words  have   their    accomplishment. 

20 


830  ETERNITY    OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

Witness  those  which  follow  :  "  Teaching  that  denying 
worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly."  And  again  : — 
"  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appear- 
inw  of  the  great  God,"  tSiic.  In  a  word,  the  apostle  says, 
"  The  grace  of  God  (not  shall  appear,  but)  hath  appeared 
to  all  men,"  Titus  ii,  11-13. 

(9.)  "  Christ  is  declared  able  to  subdue  all  things  to 
himself"  (Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  He  is.  But  where  is  the 
proof  [1.]  that  the  apostle  speaks  of  willing  subjection  ? 
and  [2.]  tliat  he  will  do  all  that  he  is  able  to  do  ?  When 
God  hath  judged  the  great  whore,  and  hath  avenged  the 
blood  of  his  servants  at  her  hand,  "  a  great  multitude,  as 
the  voice  of  many  waters,  say,  Alleluia  ;  for  the  Lord 
God  Omnipotent  reigneth,"  Rev.  xix,  2,  6. 

(10.)  "  It  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  that  one  of 
these  little  ones  perish."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  To  this  it  ia 
enough  to  answer  :  "  Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  ail  like- 
wise  perish,"  Luke  xiii,  3. 

(11.)  "  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  285.)  We  have  a  little  curiosity  to  know  how  a  So- 
cinian  will  argue  from  these  words.  But  lest  it  should 
not  be  gratified,  wc  prevent  his  argument  by  reminding 
him  of  those  who  '-deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them, 
and  bring  on  themselves  swift  destruction,"  2  Pet.  ii,  1, 
(12.)  "  'J'he  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  n.en." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  Whatever  be  the  meaning  of  this  pas- 
sage,  it  relates  to  the  present  time,  rather  than  ti.  the  fu- 
ture. He  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men.  Besides,  the  unbe- 
licving  arc  not  saved,  but  damned. 

(13.)  >'  His  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works*" 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  285.)  ''  But  he  shall  have  judgment  without 
mercy,  who  hath  showed  no  mercy,"  James  ii,  13.  .Mr. 
G.  is  very  apt  to  forgot  himself.  He  grants  that  no  mercy 
will  be  shown  to  the  finally  impenitent,  and  contends 
that  they  must  "  pay  the  last  farthing."  He  may  speak 
of  goodness  if  he  jilease,  but  mercy,  as  appears  from 
his  own  concession,  is  out  of  the  question.  Such,  how- 
ever, are  the  superficial  arguments  on  which  Socinianism 
is  founded. 

H.   His  i)hilosophical  objootions. 

When  an  advocate  of  natural  religion,  and  of  the  sufii- 
ciency  of  the  power  of  human  reason  in  divine  things, 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       231 

undertakes  to  inquire  what  are  "  the  fair  concUtsions  of 
reason,"  "  from  the  perfections  of  the  Deity,"  (vol.  ii,  p. 
239,)  the  reader  will  perhaps  expect  a  fine  specimen  of 
clear,  close,  and  cogent  metaphysical  argumentation.  He 
supposes  that  Mr.  G.  has  precisely  defined,  and  distinctly 
proved,  those  divine  perfections  which  are  the  basis  of  his 
arguments  ;  and  that,  without  any  reference  to  other 
sources  of  knowledge,  and  without  any  appeal  to  the  pas- 
sions  of  his  readers,  he  argues  as  coolly,  and  almost  as 
demonstratively,  as  a  mathematician.  An  examination 
of  Mr.  G's  arguments,  founded  on  each  of  the  divine 
perfections,  will  at  least  prove  to  the  reader  that  he  is  to 
be  disappointed. 

1.  "  Let  us  begin  with  the  justice  of  God."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
239.)  But  what  is  the  justice  of  God  ?  Mr.  G.  has  not 
been  pleased  to  inform  us.  He  leaves  us  to  adopt  any 
idea  of  it  which  we  think  proper,  and  to  change  the 
idea  as  circumstances  require.  How  then  shall  we  ascer- 
tain what  is  to  be  expected  from  divine  justice,  when  we 
do  not  know  what  that  justice  is  ?  Thus  all  Mr.  G.'s  argu- 
ment is  a  castle  in  the  air.  Divine  justice  is  that  attri- 
bute by  which  God  renders  to  every  one  that  which  is  due. 
But  how  does  this  discover  to  us  in  every  case  what  is 
due.  Not  at  all.  How  then  are  we  to  ascertain  what  is 
due  to  a  transgressor  of  the  divine  law  ?  From  that  law 
itself,  by  which  God  has  at  once  prohibited  the  sin,  and 
pointed  out  its  demerit :  that  is,  from  divine  revelation. 
"  It  is  a  righteous  thing  with  God  to  recompense  tribula- 
tion to  them  that  trouble  you, — when  the  Lord  .lesus  shall 
be  revealed  from  heaven, — taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
know  not  God,  and  obej'  not  the  gospel :  who  shall  be 
punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord,"  2  Thess.  i,  6-9.  Here  we  rest  the  ques- 
tion  :  and  whoever  professes  to  believe  the  Scripture  must 
meet  us  only  on  scriptural  ground.  If  a  thousand  objec- 
tions be  adduced  to  which  we  can  give  no  other  answer, 
we  have  always  this  reply  at  hand,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :" 
and  the  cause  of  truth  will  suffer  nothing  from  our  inability 
to  give  liny  other.     But  we  will  try. 

(1.)  Mr.  G.  urges  "  the  infirmity  of  hum.an  nature,  and 
the  temptations  to  which  it  is  exposed,  in  extenuation  of 
the  crimes  of  mankind."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  241.)     We  do  not 


232  ETERNITV    OF    FUTIRE    rUNISIIMENT. 

hesitate  to  say  that,  in  judgment,  God  will  undoubtedly 
make  just  allowance  for  every  disadvantage  of  our  con- 
dition.  But  will  he  not  also  take  into  the  account  the  light, 
the  succour,  and  the  encouragement,  which  have  been 
provided,  offered,  and  afibrded,  and  by  a  proper  use  of 
which  the  disorder  of  our  nature  might  have  been  cured, 
and  every  temptation  might  have  been  overcome  ?  And 
who  can  calculate  the  result,  in  contradiction  to  Him  who 
has  predicted  it  ? 

(2.)  He  urges  that  the  advocates  of  eternal  punishment 
"  contend  that  every  sin  is  liable  to  it."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  241.) 
We  contend  that  "  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law, 
and  yet  offend  in  one  (point,)  is  guilty  of  all,"  James  ii, 
10.  But  we  do  not  suppose  that  when  "  God  shall  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness,"  the  judgment  will  turn  upon 
this  or  that  particular  action,  considered  singly  and  exclu- 
sively, but  upon  a  review  of  the  whole  state  of  probation 
of  each  individual.  When  any  man  shall  stand  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  his  whole  time  of  probation 
will  be  completed,  and  his  character  will  be  perfectly 
formed.  On  that  character  will  turn  his  acquittal  or  con- 
damnation. 

(3.)  He  urges  the  shortness  of  the  time  spent  in  sin, 
which,  "  compared  with  eternity,  is  as  a  drop  of  water  to 
the  ocean."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  242.)  And  will  any  man  in  his 
senses  contend  that  the  malignity  of  sin  is  to  be  calculated 
from  the  space  of  time  in  which  it  is  committed  ?  Whence 
has  that  man  derived  his  ideas  of  justice,  who  contends 
that  it  is  unjust  to  intlict  a  seven  years'  punishment  on 
one  who  has  robbed  his  neighbour  in  seven  minutes  ;  or  to 
cut  off  for  ever  from  human  society  one  who,  in  a  mo- 
ment,  has  stabbed  his  neighbour  to  the  lieart  ?  Is  any  man 
ht  to  write  on  the  juris|)rudeiice  of  heaven,  who  does  not 
take  into  his  account  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the 
Lawgiver  ;  the  rea.sonablencss,  justness,  and  goodness  of 
his  laws ;  the  adaptation  of  those  laws  to  the  prosperity 
and  happiness  of  the  individual  subject,  and  of  the  whole 
community ;  the  nature  and  value  of  the  benefits  which 
the  governed  derive  from  the  governor  and  from  his  go- 
vernment ;  the  extent  of  the  obligation  to  be  obedient  ; 
the  necessity  which  tliero  is  for  every  government,  for  its 
own  preservation,  to  maintain  its  dignity,  and  to  keep  up 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       233 

the  tone  of  its  authority — (especially  when  that^overn- 
ment  is  supreme,  and  there  is  no  appeal  from  its  decisions) 
— the  nature  and  effect  of  different  crimes — the  degree  of 
injury,  dishonour,  and  displeasure  done  to  the  lawgiver  by 
the  transgressions  of  his  subjects  ;  and  both  the  near  and 
the  remote  consequences  of  a  breach  of  social  order  ?  We 
do  not  pretend  to  make  a  calculation  of  such  vast  extent ; 
but  we  venture  to  assert  that  no  man  can,  independently 
of  Scripture,  pronounce  a  just  verdict  until  he  has  made  it. 

(4.)  He  urges  that  "some  shall  be  beaten  with  many 
stripes,  and  some  with  fewer."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  243.)  Mr.  G.'s 
argument  should  be  founded  merely  in  reason.  That 
punishment  will  be  exactly  proportioned  to  the  sins  of  the 
criminal  we  do  not  deny.  But  it  is  equally  possible  for  a 
light  or  a  heavier  punishment  to  be  eternal.  On  this  sup-, 
position,  therefore,  "the  least  crime  will  (not)  be  upon  an 
equality  with  the  greatest."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  244.) 

(5.)  He  urges  that  "  the  actions  of  a  finite  being  can 
never  merit  infinite  punishment."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  244.)  If  by 
infinite  he  meant  eternal,  this  is  the  thing  not  to  be 
asserted,  but  to  be  proved. 

(6.)  He  adds,  "  But  a  just  God  must  have  some  end 
in  view,  in  eternally  punishing  his  creatures."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
244.)  Undoubtedly.  But  it  is  not  wisdom  to  pretend  to. 
enter  into  the  counsels  of  the  Almighty.  "  Who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?"  We  could  follow  some 
of  our  predecessors  in  their  ingenious  conjectures  con- 
cerning  the  ends  to  be  answered  by  the  unlimited  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked  ;  but  "  who  hath  required  this  at  our 
hands  ?"  It  is  enough,  that  though  "  clouds  and  darkness 
are  round  about  him,  righteousness  and  judgment  are  the 
habitation  of  his  throne,"  Psa.  xcvii,  2  ;  and  that  the  ends 
of  infinite  justice  will  thereby  be  answered. 

(7.)  He  proceeds  :  "  To  suppose  that  God  will  ever- 
lastingly torture  (punish)  his  creatures,  merely  because  his 
own  majesty  is  offended,  makes  him  a  mere  God  of  ven- 
geance." (Vol.  ii,  pp.  244,  245.)  By  supposing  him  to 
punish  his  rebellious  and  incorrigible  creatures  for  ever, 
we  suppose  that  "  to  him  belongeth  vengeance."  But  we 
do  not  "  make  him  a  mere  God  of  vengeance,"  while  we 
suppose  him  first  to  have  tendered  to  them  his  infinite 
mercy,  and  "the  riches  of  his  grace  :"  and  while  we  sup- 
20* 


234       ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUXISHMEXT. 

]>ose  that  he  may  have  other  reasons  for  it  beside  tliat 
♦•  his  majesty  is  offended." 

Of  Mr.  G.'s  impassioned  comi)arison  (vol.  ii,  pp.  246- 
248)  we  take  no  notice.  He  must  reason  and  not  declaim 
— not  play  the  orator  but  the  philosopher. 

2.  Mr.  G.'s  attention  is  engaged  next  by  "  the  wisdom 
of  the  Deity."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  248.)  His  argument  on  this 
topic  is  very  brief.  You  maintain  that  mankind  were 
"  destined  to  be  for  ever  happy."  "  Eternal  torture  (pun- 
ishment)  was  not  at  first  intended."  "Is  not  (then)  the 
original  design  of  God  defeated  1"  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  248,  249.) 
Mr.  G.  forms  but  an  awkward  guess  at  what  we  main- 
tain ;  and,  therefore,  we  must  inform  him.  We  maintain 
that  God  made  man  to  be  a  probationer,  intending  to  "  set 
i)et"ore  him  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing,"  but  to 
enjoin  him  to  "  choose  life  that  he  might  live,"  Deut.  xxx, 
19,  and  to  reward  his  voluntary  obedience  with  eternal 
life ;  or  to  punish  his  final  disobedience  with  eternal  fire. 
With  such  purposes,  how  could  God's  original  design  be 
defeated  ? 

3.  Mr.  G.  makes  an  awkward  transition  from  the  wis- 
dom to  "  the  goodness,  benevolence,  and  mercy  of  God. 
Of  this  glorious  attribute  of  the  Deity,  finite  beings  (he 
thinks)  can  never  form  an  adequate  conception."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  249.)  No,  nor  of  his  justice.  Why  then  did  he 
presume  to  argue  from  premises  which  he  did  not  com- 
prebend,  and  that  even  in  the  face  of  him  who  does  com- 
prehend them  ?  Why  did  be  presume  to  argue  that  God 
cannot  do  tliat  which  as  a  just  (iod  he  declares  that  he  will, 
and  that  he  must  do  that,  as  a  merciful  God,  which  lie  has 
not  promised?  Or  rather,  Why  does  he  not  relinquish  this 
inconclusive  mode  of  argumentation  ;  and,  on  a  question 
whicli  only  the  Scriptures  can  determine,  appeal  only  to 
the  Scriptures  ? 

As  Mr.  G.  cannot  comprehend  infinite  goodness,  he 
argues  from  human  goodness.  Thus  Moses,  Paul,  and 
(goodly  as.sociate  !)  Mr.  White,  the  Universalist.  are  cited, 
us  men  of  such  benevolrnce  that  they  could  willingly 
have  sufiered  for  their  fellow  creatures.  Is  it  necessary 
to  remind  tiie  reader  that  such  is  the  benevolence  of  CJod 
to  man,  that  "  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  ?"  That 
such  is  the  benevolence  of  Christ,  that  he  was  "  made  a 


ETERNITY  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       235 

curse  for  us  ?"  Whatever  of  benevolence  may  J»e  found 
in  Moses,  Paul,  or  Mr.  White,  the  Saviour  of  men  has 
done  more  for  their  salvation  than  any  of  these  men 
thought  of  doing.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  bene- 
volence of  man  to  man  can,  therefore,  conclude  nothing 
farther.  What  these  men  wished  or  proposed  to  do, 
Jesus  Christ  has  actually  done.  Again  :  God  is  more 
wise  and  just  than  either  Moses  or  Paul.  When,  there- 
fore, the  former  said,  "  Yet  now,  if  thou  wilt,  forgive  their 
sin  ;  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book," 
the  Lord  said  unto  him,  "  Whosoever  hath  sinned  against 
me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book."  And  when  the 
latter  "  could  have  wished  himself  accursed  for  his  bre- 
thren's sake,"  it  was  not  permitted. 

"  What !  shall  benevolence  itself  pursue  a  course  of 
conduct  at  which  imperfect  human  goodness  would  abso- 
lutely shudder?"  God  will  do  that  at  which  Mr.  G. 
affects  to  shudder  ;  and  has  often  done  that,  "  the  hearing 
of  which  would  make  a  man's  ears  to  tingle,"  1  Sam.  iii, 
1  ;  2  Kings  xxi,  12  ;  Jer.  xix,  3.  Yes  :  and  many  who 
really  shudder  at  the  thought  of  it  now,  will  hereafter 
approve  it.  When  "  the  smoke"  of  them  that  are  judged 
"  shall  rise  up  for  ever  and  ever,"  they  will  imitate  the 
heavenly  host  and  sing,  "Alleluia,  salvation,  and  glory, 
and  honour,  and  power  unto  the  Lord  our  God  :  for  true 
and  righteous  are  his  judgments,"  Rev.  xix,  1-3. 

"  But  God  does  not  look  upon  mankind  as  enemies." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  252.)  So  says  Mr.  G.  And  what  say  the 
Scriptures  ?  "  But  these  mine  enemies,  which  would  not 
that  I  should  reign  over  them,  bring  hither  and  slay  them 
before  me,"  Luke  xix,  27. 

4.  He  argues  from  the  divine  prescience : — "  He 
that  before  the  beginning  of  time  foresaw  every  thing 
that  would  come  to  pass,  would  he  have  created  such 
beings  ?  created  to  destroy  ?"  The  divine  prescience  is 
a  subject  a  little  too  difficult  for  a  human  mind  to  scan  : 
especially  as  there  is  nothing  in  nature  by  which  it  can 
be  illustrated.  All  the  arguments  founded  upon  it 
are  thefSfore  founded  on  what  we  do  not  understand. 
It  is  not  impossible,  however,  to  give  them  a  rational 
answer. 

(1.)    The  Scriptures  declare  that  "  known  unto  God 


236  ETERNITV    OF    FUTURE    PUMSHMEXT. 

are  all  his  works,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,"  Acts 
XV,  18  ;  and  yet  the  same  Scriptures  declare  that  the 
wicked  "  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  fire,"  Matt,  xxv, 
41.  But  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  inconsistent  with 
themselves.  (2.)  If  there  be  no  impropriety  in  the  man- 
ner  in  which  God  treats  mankind  as  known,  no  man  can 
fix  upon  it  any  impropriety  as  foreknown.  (3.)  We  have 
already  shown  that,  in  our  opinion,  the  design  with  which 
man  was  created  was,  that  he  might  be  placed  in  a  state 
of  probation.  In  that  case,  God  created  mankind  with  a 
positive  design,  neither  that  they  should  be  eternally  hap- 
py, nor  that  they  should  be  eternally  miserable.  That  man 
should  choose  death  rather  than  life,  is  not,  therefore,  the 
fault  of  Him  that  made  him,  but  his  own.  It  is  not  God's, 
because  he  affectionately  forewarned  iiim  of  the  danger, 
earnestly  entreated  him  to  be  happy,  and  amply  provided 
for  him  all  the  means  requisite  to  his  happiness.  (4.) 
If  there  were  any  weight  in  the  argument  from  the  divine 
prescience,  it  would  disprove  the  possibility  of  any  mea- 
sure  of  human  misery,  as  well  as  of  eternal  misery. 

5.  His  last  philosophical  argument  is  deduced  from  the 
divine  immutability.  "  All  the  natural  evils  which  are 
suffered  to  befall  us  (here)  tend  to  the  production  of  good." 
Mr.  G.,  therefore,  presumes  that  "  unless  the  nature  of  the 
immutable  Jehovah  should  change,"  "the  punishment  of 
a  future  world  will  bo  of  a  similar  nature."  (Vol.  ii,  pp. 
255,  256.) 

.  Just  so,  we  might  presume  that,  because  good  men  are 
alHicted  here,  they  will  also  be  atllicted  hereafter.  But 
"  presumptions"  are  not  arguments.  It  must  be  proved 
that  such  is  the  design  of  future  piuiishment  ;  for  the  im- 
mutability of  the  divine  nature  will  not  change  his  pur- 
pose or  his  word.  Tiic  (ruth  is,  it  is  one  of  Mr.  G.'s 
first  presumptions,  that  to  make  all  his  creatures  finally 
happy  is  God's  absolute  design.  Setting  out  on  this  un- 
founded theory,  he  proceeds  from  one  error  to  another, 
and  fills  his  book  with  "  |)resumptions."  That  the  pre- 
sent is  the  time  of  probation,  and  the  future  the  time  of 
retribution,  he  cannot  see.  or  will  not  arknowledge. 
Hence  he  supposes  earth  and  hell  to  be  much  alike,  and 
the  end  of  suffering  in  both  states  to  be  the  same.  Even 
while  he  describes  the  present  state  of  human  existence, 


eteKjNIty  of  futurk  punishment.  237 

as  "  chequered  with  pleasure  and  pain,"  (vol.  ii,  p.  255,) 
he  cannot  advert  to  the  fact,  that  in  hell  the  damned  have 
not  "  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  their  tongue  ;"  nor  while  he 
argues  that  "  love  is  strongest,  and  in  its  own  nature  most 
powerful  to  attract  and  to  persuade,"  (vol.  ii,  p.  294,)  can 
he  infer  that  if  that  infinite  goodness  which  here  pierces 
the  clouds  of  aflliction  do  not  win  the  hearts  of  rebels, 
there  is  but  little  probability  that  all  the  weight  of 
divine  wrath  will  teach  them  to  love  their  Maker.  He 
has  not  as  yet  proved  the  salutary  nature  of  "  the  dam- 
nation of  hell,"  and  he  cannot  prove  it  from  the  divine 
immutability,  unless  he  can  first  prove  that  from  the  be- 
ginning  it  was  the  absolute  purpose  of  God  that  every  man 
shall  be  finally  happy. 

There  is  one  species  of  Socinian  argumentation  which 
Mr.  G.  has  not  brought  formally  before  us,  though 
his  lecture  abounds  with  it.  We  have  one  specimen  of 
it  where  he  says,  "  Vindictive  passions  cannot  exist  in 
God."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  246.)  This  remark  contains  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  Socinianism  ;  and  yet  it  is  itself  a 
mere  assumption ;  a  dogma  by  which  an  important  part 
of  divine  revelation  is  contradicted.  In  revealing  himself 
to  mankind,  God  has  often  used  a  figure  called  anthropo- 
pathy,  by  which  human  passions  are  attributed  to  the 
divine  Mind.  The  ideas  conveyed  by  those  allusions 
certainly  are  not  the  precise  and  proper  ideas  of  the 
divine  attributes  ;  but  rightly  understood,  and  divested  of 
every  thing  which  is  weak  and  sinful  in  man,  they  sug- 
gest the  most  appropriate  ideas  of  the  ways  of  God  which 
we  can  conceive.  The  ways  and  the  thoughts  of  God 
are  high  above  ours,  as  the  heaven  is  above  the  earth. 
But  if  we  do  not  imitate  himself,  in  imputing  to  him 
something  like  human  passions,  we  exchange  revealed 
knowledge  for  philosophical  ignorance.  How  often  does 
God  speak  of  his  desire,  compassion,  pity,  mercy,  and 
love  ?  The  Socinians  seldom  dream  that  these  are  human 
passions,  and  that  as  human  passions  they  "  cannot  exist 
in  God."  Whatever  can  be  fairly,  or  even  speciously  in- 
ferred fre*n  these  passions  in  men,  they  presume  that  they 
may  equally  infer  from  them  in  God.  No  pains  are  then 
taken  even  to  show  that  all  idea  of  human  weakness  must 
be  removed  from  them.     But  when  God  speaks  of  his 


238  DIVINE    IXSMRATIOX    OF    THK 

anger,  wrath,  indignation,  fury,  and  vengeance,  then  \vc 
are  not  only  taught  that  these  passions  are  not  such  in  God 
as  they  are  in  man,  hut  arc  barefacedly  told  that  they 
"  cannot  exist  in  God,"  and  that  in  such  unqualified  terms 
as  leave  us  no  substitute  for  those  ideas  of  the  ways  of 
God  which  he  himself  has  suggested.  To  remedy  this, 
we  demand,  in  the  name  of  Scripture  and  common  sense, 
that  the  Socinians  either  desist  from  reasoning  according 
to  their  present  practice,  on  the  former  class  of  passions, 
or  that  they  do  us  the  justice  to  reason  in  the  same  manner 
on  the  latter,  in  which  they  now  reason  on  the  former. 

One  word  on  Mr.  G.'s  concluding  reflections.  "The 
first  is,  that  the  system  of  universal  restitution  contains  no 
tenets  which  present  the  slightest  drawback  to  the  practice 
of  any  Christian  duty."  "  The  second  is,  that  the  doctrine 
of  universal  restitution  presents  the  strongest  incentive  to 
the  practice  of  any  Christian  duty,  by  giving  a  double 
efficacy  to  the  motives  of  gratitude  and  love."  We  think 
otherwise.  Humble  fear,  and  holy  love,  give  life  to  all 
genuine  piety.  He  that  believes  the  eternal  punishment 
of  the  wicked,  and  embraces  the  Christian  salvation,  will 
have  the  greatest  reason  to  fear  and  love.  We  do  not, 
however,  found  our  doctrine  on  a  mere  opinion  concerning 
what  is  most  conducive  to  virtue  and  piety,  but  on  the 
express  declarations  of  the  word  of  God. 


CHAPTER   XH.* 

Of  the  Divine  Inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Writings. 

TiiK  divine  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writings  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  tiieir  establishment  as  the  faithfiil 
records  of  religion,  and  the  standard  of  the  principles  and 
practice  of  |)iety.  This  may  not  be  the  opinion  of  those 
who,  with  unlimited  coniidonco  in  the  powers  of  their  own 
reason,  profess  to  demonstrate  a  priori,  the  existence,  the 
nature,  the  attributes,  and  the  will  of  (Jod  ;  but  it  may  be 
easily  and  consistently  granted  by  those  who  believe  that 

•  The  auiliur  has  nul  l>ecn  able  to  insert  this  clinper  and  the  three 
following  in  what  he  judges  to  he  their  proper  place,  in  consequenco 
of  being  necessarily  governed  partly  by  the  order  which  Mr.  G.  has 
observed. 


SACRED   WRITINGS.  239 

'« the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  one,  but  the  Spirit  oj|God." 
If  all  knowledge  of  divine  things  is  from  divine  revela. 
tion,  and  if  there  is  no  divine  revelation  but  from  the 
Spirit  of  God,  the  Bible  can  be  established  as  a  divine 
revelation  of  God,  his  perfections,  and  his  will,  only  on 
the  supposition  that  the  writers  of  it  have  been  divinely 
inspired  :  and  to  ascertain  that  they  were  so  inspired  is 
necessary  before  their  writings  can  be  received  with  that 
entire  acquiescence  of  our  understanding,  and  that  perfect 
submission  of  our  will,  which  a  divine  revelation  demands. 

When  once  a  man  has  got  rid  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament,  he  feels  himself  perfectly 
at  liberty  to  adapt  his  Bible  to  his  creed,  and  to  reject  as 
false,  if  not  absurd,  whatever  in  the  former  contradicts  the 
latter.  It  is  thus  the  Socinians,  to  keep  themselves  in 
countenance  under  an  entire  opposition  to  "  the  principal 
doctrines  of  Christianity,"  undermine  the  divine  authority 
of  every  Christian  document. 

However  easy  it  may  be  to  surmount  the  difficulties  of 
scriptural  doctrine,  after  disposing  of  the  inspiration  of 
Scripture,  the  latter  required  some  management.  But 
Mr.  G.  knows  how  to  take  an  advantage.  He  is  not  so 
little  versed  in  the  polemic  art,  as  not  to  know  by  frequent 
experience  that  every  doctrine  has  some  votaries  who  have 
not  formed  habits  of  nice  distinction,  and  who,  therefore, 
state  their  opinions  in  such  general  terms  as  to  expose 
them  unnecessarily  to  the  attacks  of  an  opponent :  nor  is 
he  incapable  of  making  choice  of  such  a  statement  as  is 
most  exceptionable.  In  the  present  instance,  thouorh  not 
in  this  only,  he  has  given  proof  of  his  discretion,  by  takino- 
the  utmost  advantage,  as  will  appear  from  the  two  inqui- 
ries  which  contain  the  opinion  which  he  supposes  it  his 
business  to  controvert :  1.  "  Whether  the  facts  they  (the 
sacred  writers)  recorded,  the  sentiments  they  occasionally 
expressed,  the  reasonings  they  adduced,  the  particular 
directions  given,  requests  made,  and  intentions  specified, 
all  took  place  under  the  immediate  superintendence,  com- 
munication, direction,  and  control  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
2.  Whetlier  their  very  words  Were  dictated  by  inspiration.'' 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  320.)  Such  are  the  opinions  which  Mr,  G. 
controverts,  from  which  he  derives  all  his  advantages,  and 
through  the  sides  of  which  he  attempts  to  wound  the 


240  DIVINK    INSriRATION    OF    TIIK 

inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.     We  shall  not  meet  him  on 
this!  ground. 

Before  we  proceed  to  mark  the  ground  which  we  pro- 
pose to  defend,  a  few  words  may  be  necessary  on  the  use 
of  the  phrase,  "the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.''  Mr. 
G.  is  of  opinion  that  "  an  excessive  and  blind  attachment 
to  this  phrase  has  been  the  cause  of  indefinite  mischief  in 
the  Christian  world  :"  he  therefore  recommends  that  '•  in- 
stead of  the  term  '  inspired  writings,'  the  expressions  *  hea- 
venly doctrines,'  'divine  precepts,'  'sacred  principles,' 
&c.,  of  Christianity  be  substituted."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  314.) — 
This  is  the  opponent  of  scholastic  phrases,  the  advocate 
of  scriptural  terms  !  Asking  pardon  for  our  presumption, 
we  prefer  the  word  inspiration,  as  applied  to  the  Scriptures, 
because  it  is  scriptural,  and  is  equally  determinate  with 
any  of  those  which  he  has  recommended.  It  is  as  difficult 
to  define  in  wiiat  degree  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  are 
heavenly,  divine,  or  sacred,  as  to  define  in  what  way  the 
Scriptures  were  inspired. 

Tlie  truth  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  depend  on  our  stating  with  perfect  precision 
the  manner  and  tl>e  measure  in  which  the  immediate  au- 
thors  of  tliose  books  were  inspired  at  tlie  time  of  writing 
them.  We  should  not  deny  that  we  are  the  workmanship 
of  God,  because  wc  cannot  exactly  point  out  the  ditference 
between  thecreation  of  Adam  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  the  production  of  a  man  by  the  ordinary  process  of 
generation.  VV^itiiout  distinguishing  the  manner  of  the 
divine  operations,  we  know  the  simple  fact,  that  it  is  "he 
that  made  us,  and  not  we  ourselves  ;"  and  we  piously 
adore  hini  as  our  (Creator.  Just  so,  without  knowing 
distinctly  the  manner  of  the  divine  Communication,  we 
may  know  and  acknowledge  the  divine  wisdom  and  au- 
tliority  with  whicli  tiie  Bible  teaches  and  commands  us, 
and  with  equal  piety  we  may  believe  and  obey.  If,  there- 
fore,  wc  now  attempt  to  trace  the  footsteps  of  the  Deity  in 
the  revelation  of  himself  with  which  he  has  favoured  us. 
it  will  not  be  done  under  a  presumi)tion  that  we  shall  point 
out  the -precise  method  and  measure  in  which  each  of  the 
sacred  writers  received  the  divine  inspiration  ;  but  merely 
to  show  liow  it  was  p()s.sil)le  for  them  to  have  written  under 
a  divine  inllurnce,  witliout  their  inspiration  being  liable 
to  Mr.  G.'s  objections. 


SACRED    WRITINGS.  241 

The  Bible  is  a  book  purporting  to  be  a  revelation  of 
Cod,  his  works,  and  his  will.  It  contains  every  thing 
suited  to  the  purpose  of  a  divine  revelation,  every  thing 
that  is  "  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness  ;  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works," 
2  Tim.  iii,  16,  17.  It  is  designed,  not  only  for  those 
among  whom  it  was  first  published,  but  for  all  men  in 
every  age  of  the  world.  It  is  "  to  make  all  men  see 
what  is  the  fellowsliip  of  the  mystery,  which  from  the  be- 
ginning  of  the  world  hath  been  hid  in  God,"  Eph.  iii,  9; 
■"  that  in  the  ages  to  come  he  might  show  the  exceeding 
riches  of  his  grace,"  Eph.  ii,  7.  It  pronounces  a  blessing 
on  •'  him  that  readeth,  and  on  them  that  hear  the  words" 
which  it  contains,  '•  and  who  keep  those  things  which  are 
written  therein,"  Rev.  i,  3.  It  was  therefore  necessary 
that  proper  means  should  be  used  to  secure  its  being  deli- 
vered in  such  a  manner  as  to  answer  the  vast  purpose  for 
which  it  was  given.  And  since  that  purpose  could  be  con- 
ceived only  by  the  all-comprehending  mind  of  God,  who 
knows  no  distance  of  time  or  place,  from  him  only  it  could 
originate,  and  by  him  it  must  be  directed  to  its  design. 

1.  It  contains  a  number  of  important  facts,  which  form 
the  basis  on  which  the  rest  of  Scripture  is  erected.  Of 
these  facts  it  was  necessary  that  the  sacred  w  riters  should 
transmit  to  us  a  true  and  just  narrative.  The  account 
which  Moses  gives  of  the  creation,  must  be  such  as  not 
only  to  agree  with  the  real  state  of  things,  but  to  repre- 
sent God  doing  his  great  work  in  a  manner  worthy  of 
himself,  and  to  manifest  his  perfections  as  the  Creator. 
The  fall  of  Adam  must  be  so  described,  as  sufficiently  to 
account  for  the  present  state  of  human  nature,  and  to  form 
a  sufficient  basis  for  the  whole  system  of  human  redemp- 
tion, with  which,  without  inspiration,  Moses  must  have 
been  very  imperfectly  acquainted.  The  behaviour  of  the 
Israelites,  and  the  dealings  of  God  with  them,  must  be  so 
delineated  as  to  illustrate  properly  the  divine  perfections 
and  the  ways  of  God  with  the  children  of  men.  The  his- 
tory of  Jfsus  Christ  must  be  a  genuine  portrait  of  his  cha- 
racter, a  true  copy  of  his  doctrine,  and  a  foundation  for 
the  whole  Christian  system. 

Of  some  of  these  facts  the  narrators  were  not  immediate 
21 


242  DIVIDE    INSPIRATIO^r    0>'    niE 

witnesses.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  they  made* 
no  use  of  any  written  document  to  which  they  had  access- 
of  any  undoubted  tradition  with  which  they  miglit  he  ac- 
quainted, or  of  the  credible  testimony  of  immediate  wit- 
nesses. Moses  miglit  learn  many  parts  of  his  history 
from  the  traditions  which  he  collected  among  the  Israel- 
ites, and  other  parts  from  those  of  his  cotemporaries  who 
related  what  they  had  seen  and  heard.  Matthew  an(i 
Luke  might  take  their  genealogies,  partly  from  tlie  Old 
Testament,  and  partly  from  other  Jewish  records.  Both 
of  them  might  receive  the  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus 
from  the  holy  family.  Or  the  latter  might  receive  the 
contents  of  his  gospel  from  those  who  were  "eyewit- 
nesses," Luke  i,  2,  of  what  he  recorded.  All  this  is  pos- 
sible, and  even  probable  :  and  some  part  of  it  is  certain. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  necessary  that  the  writer 
should  be  assured  of  the  truth  of  what  he  had  thus  learned- 
and  of  the  propriety  of  making  it  a  part  of  the  record,  and 
that  he  should  relate  the  facts  in  such  a  manner  as  wa» 
fit  to  answer  the  divine  purpose.  For  this  end  a  divine 
afllatus  was  necessary.  But,  l>cside  this,  some  of  those 
facts,  and  some  circumstances  of  others  of  those  facts,^ 
could  not  be  known  kit  by  divine  inspiration.  Such 
are,  the  manner  and  order  in  which  the  world  was? 
created  ; — that  when  (lod  saw  tlio  wickedness  of  mankind,^ 
*<  it  repented  him  that  he  had  made  man,  and  grieved  him 
at  his  heart,"  Gen.  vi,  0  ; — and  that  Jesus  Christ  "  sat 
on  the  right  hand  of  (iod."  The  accounts  which  they 
give  of  such  facts,  and  their  mingling  them  with  those 
which  might  otherwise  be  ascertained,  show  that  they 
were  under  a  divine  inspiration  at  the  time  of  writing. 

Of  others  of  the  facta  which  they  tecord,  they  were 
themselves  imiwcdiate  witnesses.  To  doubt  whether,  ii» 
pul)lishing  those  facls,  they  made  use  of  their  best  \nuler- 
standing  and  memory,  would  be  very  unreasonable.  But 
here  again  was  to  be  a  choice  of  topics,  and  of  eircum- 
stances.  It  was  impossiWe  for  them  to  judge  ac*iirat«'ly 
what  factss  and  what  inridt^nls  it  was  thd  mind  of  (Jod  to 
make  known.  Nothing  was  to  be  wanting  which  wo\d(? 
convey  to  the  rea«ler  (he  nece!»9;iry  instruction  concerning' 
the  ways  and  dispensations  of  God.  Nothing  was  to  be 
inserted  which  would  be  a  needless  incimibrancc  to  the 


SACSED    WRITINGS.  24^ 

sacred  volume.  Tiie  manner  of  relation  was  t()^,be  not 
•only  taitliful,  but  jiulicious,  and  tit  for  the  illustration  of 
the  grand  topic,  tlic  perfections  of  that  God  who  was  but 
partially  known  to  the  writer.  How  was  all  this  to  be 
done  without  a  divine  inspiration  ?  If  a  mere  unassisted 
liuinan  understanding  was  insufficient  for  this  work,  an 
unassisted  human  memory  was  still  more  so.  The  human 
memory  inherits  the  imperfection  of  the  understanding. 
When  we  do  not  rightly  apprehend  a  thing,  we  cannot 
rightly  remember  it ;  but  our  misconceptions  often  ren. 
<Jer  our  productions  monstrous.  Pi-ejudice  or  passion 
sometimes  makes  us  misconstrue  the  plainest  things.  Mr. 
O.  says  that  Mo^es,  with  the  highest  degree  of  inspiration, 
was  not  free  from  taults.  The  fault  to  which  he  alludes 
seems  to  be  of  that  very  kind  which  would  have  rendered 
him  a  very  improper  person  to  write  a  divine  record,  with- 
out immediate  inspiration.  "  The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses, 
saying.  Take  the  rod,  and  gather  thou  the  assembly 
together,  thou  and  Aaron  thy  brother,  and  speak  ye  unto 
the  rock  before  their  eyes,  and  it  shall  give  forth  his  wa- 
ter,  and  thou  shalt  bring  forth  to  them  water  out  of  the 
vock  :  so  thou  shalt  give  the  congregation  and  their  beasts 
drink.  And  Moses  took  the  rod  from  before  the  Lord,  as 
he  commanded  him.  And  Moses  and  Aaron  gathered  the 
congregation  together  before  the  rock,  and  he  said  unto 
them,  Hear  now,  ye  rebels ;  must  we  fetch  you  water  out 
■of  this  rock  ?  And  Moses  lifted  up  his  hand,  and  with  his 
rod  he  smote  the  rock  twice ;  and  the  water  came  out 
abundantly,  and  the  congregation  drank,  and  their  beasts 
also,"  Num.  XX,  7-12.  If  Moses,  through  prejudice  and 
passion,  mistook  the  divine  command,  and  so  far  misrepre- 
sented it  as  to  smite  the  rock  when  God  had  bidden  him 
only  speak  to  it;  and  to  take  the  glory  to  himself  in- 
stead of  rendering  it  to  God,  and  that  immediately  after 
he  had  received  that  command,  how  unfit  must  he  have 
been  to  represent  the  mind  of  God  to  ail  succeeding  genera, 
tions,  without  a  present  divine  inspiration  !  But  this  is 
not  tlie  only  case  in  {K)int.  The  apostles  of  our  Lord 
■"  went  m  and  out  witli  him,  beginning  at  the  baptism  of 
.John,  unto  that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up."  They 
saw  his  works,  and  heard  his  doctrine,  and  were  intended 
to  be  witnesses  of  "  what  they  bad  heard  and  seen."    But 


244  DIVINE    INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

how  little  did  they  understand  of  what  they  had  heard  .' 
What  they  did  not  understand  tliey  easily  forgot.  And  if 
they  had  remembered  something  of  it,  how  erroneous 
must  have  been  their  representations  of  it  under  so  many 
mistakes!  for  men  generally  repeat  their  own  comments 
rather  than  the  text,  and  retail  tlieir  own  construction  of 
what  they  have  heard.  What  possibility  was  tiiere,  then, 
that  after  the  lapse  of  a  number  of  years,  they  should  re- 
member and  record,  with  circumstantial  exactness,  the 
many  discourses,  didactic  and  prophetic,  which  are  now 
contained  in  the  four  gospels  ?  When  they  could  not  con- 
ceive  the  meaning  of  their  divine  teacher,  he  promised 
that  "  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the 
Father  would  send  in  his  name,  should  teach  them  all 
things,  and  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance,  whatso- 
ever he  had  said  imto  them,"  John  xiv,  26.  Such  were 
their  understanding  and  memory  that  they  could  not  be 
witnesses  of  what  they  had  seen  and  heard  until  they  "re- 
ceived power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  come  upon 
them,"  Ac4:s  i,  8.  To  this,  therefore,  we  are  indebted  for 
authentic  histories  of  the  life  and  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ. 
2.  They  have  not  only  related  facts  ;  their  writings 
afford  many  predictions  of  future  events.  As  no  man  can 
naturally  have  any  certain  foresight  of  future  contingen- 
cies, it  is  impossible  that  the  sacred  writers  should  utter 
their  predictions  without  divine  inspiration.  Prophecy 
is,  therefore,  on  all  occasions  attributed  to  the  Spirit  of 
God.  "Would  God,"  said  Moses,  "that  all  the  Lord's 
people  were  prophets,  and  that  the  Lord  would  put  his 
Spirit  upon  them !"  Num.  xi.  29.  "  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit,  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy," 
Joel  ii,  28.  "To  one  is  given,  by  the  Spirit,  the  word 
of  wisdom,  to  another  prophecy,"  1  Cor.  xii,  8,  10.  In 
a  word,  "the  prophecy  came  not  in  old'  time  by  the  will 
of  man.  but  the  holy  men  of  God  spake  (as  they  were) 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  2  Peter  i,  20,  21.  'it  is  not 
necessary  to  prove  this  against  Mr.  G.,  who  also  main- 
tains, "  that  all  the  prophecies  in  the  Scriptures  wore 
communi(!ated  by  the  Almighty."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  319.)  Hut, 
if  prophecy  came  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  all  who  uttered 
predictions,  by  so  doing,  gave  proof  that  they  received 
the  breath  of  divine  inspiration. 


SACRED   WniTINOS.  245 

t 

3.  The  doctrines  of  the  Bible  come  next  under  our 
consideration.  These  were  founded  on  the  facts  which 
are  recorded  by  the  sacred  writers,  or  on  the  prophecies 
which  they  delivered.  They  consist  of  those  srpeculative 
and  saving  triitlis  which  it  was  a  principal  object  of  the 
book  of  revelation  to  make  known  to  mankind,  the  things 
of  God,  which  no  man  knoweth  but  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
therefore  were  communicated  by  inspiration.  As  our 
Lord  promised  that  the  Spirit  of  truth  should  teach  his 
apostles,  and  remind  them  of  all  things  whatsoever  he  had 
said  unto  them  ;  he  promised  also  that  the  same  Spirit 
should  make  known  to  them  whatever  was  farther  neces- 
sary for  the  fulfilment  of  their  ministry.  "  I  have  yet 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  (he  observed,)  but  ye  can- 
not  bear  them  now,  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth  :  he  shall  not 
speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  (that) 
shall  he  speak  ;  and  he  will  show  you  things  to  come," 
John  XV,  13,  14.  Mr.  G.  need  not  be  afraid  that  we 
shall  seek  any  undue  advantage  from  the  expression,  "  all 
things."  We  include  only  *'  all"  those  "  things"  which 
Jesus  had  yet  to  say  unto  them,  but  which  they  could  not 
yet  bear. 

The  Apostle  Paul  had  not  heard  the  instructions,  or 
seen  the  miracles  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  received 
the  whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine  by  immediate  in- 
spiration.  Hence  he  says  to  theGalatians,  "  I  certify  you, 
brethren,  that  the  gospel  which  was  preached  of  me  is  not 
after  man.  For  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was 
I  taught  it  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Gal.  i, 
11,  12.  This  revelation  to  St.  Paul  included  both  the 
words  and  the  deeds  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  therefore  men- 
tions to  the  Corinthians  his  having  "  received  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that 
he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day : 
that  he  was  seen  of  Cephas,  of  the  twelve,  and  of  above 
five  hundred  brethren  at  once,"  &c.,  1  Cor.  xv,  3-8. 
Again  :  "  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also 
I  delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread  :  and  when 
he  hdA  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  vou  ;  this  do  in  re» 
21* 


246  DIVINE  INSPIRATION    OF  THE 

membrancc  of  me.  After  the  same  manner,  he  took  also 
the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the 
New  Testament  in  my  blood  ;  this  do  ye  as  oft  as  ye 
drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me,"  1  Cor.  xii,  23-25. 
Hence  we  learn  that  this  apostle  had  both  the  words  and 
the  deeds  of  Jesus  Christ  revealed  to  iiim. 

Mr.  G.  has  conceded  "  that  all  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Christianity  were  of  heavenly  origin  ;  that  they  were 
not  the  deductions  of  reason  in  the  minds  of  their  first 
promulgators,  but  were  imparted  to  them  by  God."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  321.)  Thus  far,  then,  is  clear,  tiiat  the  apostles 
originally  received  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  by  divine 
inspiration.  It  is  now  our  business  to  inquire  in  what 
manner  those  doctrines  were  delivered.  We  know  that 
the  prophets  and  apostles  often  delivered  their  doctrines, 
viva  voce,  in  their  public  discourses.  But  of  those  public 
discourses  we  know  nothing,  except  from  the  written 
documents  Mhich  they  have  bequeathed  to  the  world. 
The  question,  therefore,  is,  Do  the  original  documents 
contain  those  very  doctrines  which  the  prophets  and  apos- 
tles received  inmiediately  from  God  ?  If  they  do  not,  then 
have  we  no  doctrines  of  which  we  are  assured  that  they 
arc  of  heavenly  origin.  The  Scrijjtures,  then,  are  none 
of  them  divinely  inspired.  But  if  the  original  Scriptures 
do  contain  the  precise  doctrines  which  were  "  imparted 
by  God  to  the  first  promulgators  of  them,"  and  those 
doctrines  are  "  all  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity," 
then  those  scriptures  which  contain  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Christianity  are  divinely  inspired. 

4.  The  sacred  writers  have  promulged  not  only  doc- 
trines of  which  they  speak  as  being  of  divine  origin,  but 
precepts  and  prohibitions  which  they  attribute  to  the  same 
authority.  We  cannot  deny  tiiat  these  were  received  from 
above,  without  denying  the  authenticity,  as  well  as  the 
ins|>iration  of  Scripture.  Moses,  as  the  .lowish  mediatorial 
legislator,  received  his  precepts  immedialelv  iVoiii  (Jod. 
The  tallies  of  stone  containing  the  ten  eonunandnients, 
written  by  tiie  finger  of  (iod.  were  delivered  to  him  on  the 
mount.  With  hiui  CJod  s|)ake  "mouth  to  moutli,"'  Num. 
xii,  8.  The  apostles  received  their  prer(^|)ts  principally 
from  Jesus  Clirist,  to  whom  tiie  Spirit  was  given  not  by 
measure,    and    therefore    promulged  them    as   the  com- 


S4.CRED    WRITINGS,  247 

inandments  of  the  Lord.  The  moral  or  ecclesiastical  regu- 
lations which  they  had  not  received  from  him  during  his 
ministry  were  made  known  to  them  by  a  jysion,  as 
in  the  case  of  Peter,  to  whom  it  was  thus  revealed  that 
the  gospel  should  be  preached  to  the  uncircumcised, 
Acts  X  ;  or  were  revealed  to  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
when  the  apostolic  council  decreed,  that  the  Jewish  yoke 
should  not  be  imposed  on  the  Gentile  converts.  Acts  xv, 
28  ;  and  when  the  whole  gospel,  preceptive,  as  well  as 
doctrinal,  was  made  known  to  St.  Paul,  Gal.  i,  12.  Thus 
all  their  precepts  originated  from  the  Spirit  of  God. 

If  we  suppose  that,  in  recording  these  divine  doctrines 
and  commands,  the  writers  were  directed  and  assisted  by 
divine  inspiration,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the 
exercise  of  their  natural  powers  was  suspended.  It  is 
enough  if  their  minds  were  enlightened,  their  judgments 
cleared,  and  their  memory  assisted,  so  as  to  secure  a 
faithful  record  of  what  had  been  delivered  to  them  for  the 
benefit  of  mankind.  All  we  have  to  ascertain,  therefore, 
is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  voucher  for  the  divine  truth 
of  the  doctrines,  and  the  divine  authority  of  the  com- 
mands. 

5.  There  are  several  things  which  now  make  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  divine  revelation,  but  which  probably  did 
not  constitute  a  formal  part  of  the  first  revelation  given  to 
the  apostles.  Their  inspiration  with  respect  to  these  also 
demands  our  serious  consideration. 

(1.)  The  apostles  frequently  quote  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  was  not  necessary  that  in  making  these  quota- 
tions they  should  have  the  words  suggested  to  them  ;  but  it 
was  necessary  that  they  should  be  taught  to  make  a  proper 
application  of  them,  that  they  might  not  corrupt,  instead  of 
contending  for  the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints,  and  to 
guard  them  against  the  false  glosses  of  those  who  had 
perverted  them. 

(2.)  They  in  many  places  argue  against  those  who 
deviated  from  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  If  we  suppose  the 
truth  of  the  gospel  to  have  been  communicated  to  them 
from  above,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  all  their 
arguments  were  communicated  in  the  same  manner.  But 
as  every  man  is  in  danger  of  drawing  wrong  conclusions 
from  the  truth  itself,  it  was  necessary  that,  in  delivering  the 


248  DIVIXE  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

system  of  Christianity  to  the  world,  they  should  be  guided 
to  reason  justly  from  the  divine  principles  which  they  had 
received.  If  we  admit  that  they  were  left  merely  to  exer- 
cise the  powers  of  their  unassisted  reason,  we  are  imme- 
diately left  without  any  thing  which  we  can  ascertain  to  be 
a  divine  revelation  ;  because  we  cannot  distinguish  be- 
tween their  own  reasonings  and  those  truths  wliich  were 
made  known  to  them  without  the  deductions  of  their  own 
mind. 

(3.)  They  sometimes  made  prudential  regulations  in 
the  Christian  Church.  For  instance:  The  Apostle  Paul 
recommended  celibacy  to  the  Corinthians.  He  acknow. 
ledges  that  he  had  "  no  commandment  from  the  Lord"  on 
this  head.  Jesus  Christ  had  not  commanded  celibacy, 
though  he  had  recommended  it  under  given  circumstances. 
It  was  not  perhaps  necessary  that  it  should  l)e  immediately 
suggested  to  the  apostle  to  recommend  this  measure  to  the 
immarried,  as  "good  for  the  present  distress ;"  but  it  was 
necessary  that  he  should  be  under  such  a  divine  influence 
as  would  lead  liim  to  give  his  judgment  in  a  manner 
worthy  of  a  Christian  cause.  And  it  is  remarkable  that 
he  did  deliver  it,  "  as  one  who  had  obtained  mercy  of  the 
Lord  to  be  faithful,"  and  concluded  it  with  what  stamped 
his  advice  with  divine  wisdom,  by  observing,  "  I  think 
also  that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God,"  1  Cor.  vii,  25-40. 

6.  There  are  several  things  in  the  apostolic  epistles 
which  ai-e  not  essential  parts  of  the  revelation  of  God, 
and  some  which  have  no  necessary  connection  with  reli- 
gion. There  are  •■  facts  recorded,  sentiments  expressed, 
directions  given,  requests  nrado,  and  intentions  specilied," 
which  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  '•  took  place  under 
the  communication  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  320.) 
Yet  it  is  not  unreasonablf,  as  the  record  of  these  is  con- 
nected with  the  divine  revelation,  to  stippose  that  they 
were,  for  special  purposes,  recorded  under  the  '*  superin- 
tendence and  control"  of  that  Spirit.  St.  Paul  might  in- 
tend to  "  take  a  journey  into  Spain,"  Rom.  xv,  24,  28, 
and  to  pass  by  way  of  Corinth  into  Macedonia,  1  Cor. 
xvi,  5,  to  propagate  the  gc^spol  in  those  parts  ;  and  yet 
he  might  bo  frustrated.  The  intention  was  not  the  iVuit 
of  divine  dirc^ction  ;  but  tlio  record  of  tliat  intention  might 
proceed  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  show  that  a  minister 


SACRED    WRITINGS.  249 

ought  to  live  and  die,  forming-  and  prosecuting  plans  for 
the  spread  of  Messiah's  kingdom.  It  may  l)e  recorded 
that  Paul  recommended  to  Timothy  to  "  take  a  Ij^tle  wine 
for  his  stomach's  sake,"  to  show  that  God  requires  good 
men  to  take  care  of  their  health  :  that  he  requested  iiim 
"  to  hring  his  cloak  and  books,"  to  show  that  a  good  man 
may  be  p^oor,  and  ought  to  take  care  of  wliat  little  pro- 
jjerty  he  has  ;  and  tiiat  a  great  man  may  properly  make 
use  of  the  ordinary  means  of  knowledge  and  of  learning  : 
that  he  informed  him  that  "  he  had  left  Trophimus  sick," 
to  remind  us  tliat  atflictions  befall  the  best  of  men  :  that 
he  "desired  Philemon  to  prepare  him  a  lodging,"  to 
show  that  the  greatest  concerns  ought  not  to  make  us 
negligent  of  those  which  are  of  less  moment,  and  that 
prope'r  conveniences  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  provided  for 
the  itinerant  servants  of  Christ :  and  that  "  Alexander, 
the  coppersmith,  had  behaved  ill  to  him,"  to  warn  man- 
kind of  the  danger  of  treating  witli  unkindness  the  minis- 
ters  of  the  gospel.  Now  if  these  incidental  circumstances 
afford  such  useful  lessons,  witiiout  "  supposing  the  senti- 
mcnts  and  style  of  them  to  be  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,"  we  may  justly  believe  them  to  be  written  under  his 
"  superintendence  and  control ;"  for  if  they  are  not  essen- 
tial parts  of  the  divine  revelation,  they  are  at  least  useful 
appendages  to  it,  and  therefore  not  unworthy  of  his  notice. 

Hitherto  we  have  attended  only  to  the  matter  of  divine 
revelation  :  we  shall  now  pay  some  attention  to  the  Ian- 
guage  in  which  it  has  been  delivered.  But  this  part  of 
the  subject  is  by  no  means  of  the  same  importance  w  ith 
the  preceding.  '  If  it  be  supposed  that  the  sacred  writers 
have  delivered  the  truths  of  God  in  appropriate  and  unex- 
ceptionable  terms,  it  will,  perhaps,  make  no  great  differ- 
ence  whether  or  not  we  believe  the  words  to  be  immedi- 
ately and  distinctly  suggested  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

l".  Some  of  the  revelations  which  the  sacred  writers 
received  were  delivered  to  them  in  words.  Such  were 
those  which  Moses  received :  "  God  spake  all  these 
words,  saying,"  &c.,  Exod.  xx,  1.  Such  were  many  cf 
those  communicated  to  the  prophets.  Such  w  ere  all  those 
which  the  apostles  received  from  Jesus  Christ  during  his 
stay  on  earth.  And  such  was  a  very  considerable  part 
of  what  St.  John  has  related  in  the  Apocalypse.      All 


250  DIVINE    INSPIRATION    OI'    THE 

these,  and  such  as  these,  arc  therefore  properly  couched 
in  the  words  of  God. 

2.  Many  of  their  revelations  appear  to  have  been  com- 
municated by  suggestion  to  their  minds,  When  the  ideas 
suggested  to  them  were  sensil)le  ideas,  those  ideas,  by  a 
natural  association,  would  undoul)to(lly  lead  to  tlie  words 
which  in  common  language  are  made  the  signs  of  them  ; 
and  no  other  words  were  necessary.  On  the  otlier  hand, 
some  of  those  ideas  were  abstract  ideas.  Now  abstract 
ideas  can  be  entertained  by  tlie  human  mind  only  as  con- 
nected with  words.  To  prove  this,  let  any  man  make  the 
experiment  whether  he  can  form  in  his  mind  one  single 
abstract  j)roposition  without  words.  If  lie  cannot,  he  must 
allow  tluit  tlio  inspired  writers  were  led  to  conceive  all 
such  revelations  in  words.  Those  words  may,  with  pro- 
priety, be  said  to  be  the  words  of  Cod,  as  being  connected 
with  the  ideas  wliich  the  divine  Spirit  suggested  ;  and  yet 
the  arrangement  of  them  might  take  the  mould  of  the  mind 
which  conceived  them.  Tims  the  sacred  writers  n)ight  on 
these  occasions  "  speak  the  words  which  the  Holy  Giu^st 
teacheth,"  and  yet  each  one  might  speak  in  his  own  cha- 
racteristic style. 

3.  If  the  inspired  writers  were  thus  taught  to  express 
themselves  on  divine  subjects  in  a  proper  manner,  by  the 
immediate  revelations  whicli  they  received,  their  general 
style  on  the  same  subjects  would  be  formed  on  this  model. 
Whenever  tliey  spoke  or  wrote  on  a  topic  iiurely  religious, 
though  they  miglit  not  use  terms  immediately  suggested 
at  the  time,  they  spoke,  as  St.  Paul  expressly  asserts,  in 
words  wliich  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth  ;  for  from  him  tliey 
had  learned  tliem. 

4.  On  subjects,  not  religious,  it  was  best  that  they 
should  express  tliemselves  in  common  language. 

After  this  explanation,  tlie  distinct/and  only  ipiestion 
which  remains  to  bo  discussed  is,  Did  the  sacred  penmen 
write  their  several  books  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Giiost  ?  With  a  iiope  that  our  meaning  will  not  now  bo 
mistaken,  we  decidedly  take  the  affirmative  side  of  the 
question. 

To  sliorten  the  dispute,  and"  to  clear  the  argument,  as 
much  as.mav  be,  of  all  incumbrance-;,  let  it  here  i)e  noted 
that  what  we  seek  is  not  proof  merely  that  the  writers 


SACRED    WRITINGS.  251 

were  inspired,  (for  that  will  not  answer  our  specific  pur- 
nose,)  but  that  they  were  inspired  writers.  And  if  it 
should  appear  from  the  Scriptures  themselves  that  divine 
inspiration  is  ascribed  to  their  writings,  it  will  sufficiently 
appear  that  they  were  inspired  in  writing. 

1.  We  will  tirst  inquire  into  the  inspiration  of  tlie 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(1.)  Our  Lord  speaks  of  the  writings  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  inspired  :  "  David  himself  said,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool,"  Mark  xii, 
36.  This  is  a  citation  from  the  one  hundred  and  tenth 
Psalm.  Now  the  Psalms  are  not  orations,  M^hich  were 
lirst  delivered  viva  voce,  but  written  compositions.  It 
follows  tliat  they  were  written  by  inspiration.  . 

(2.)  The  Apostle  Peter,  speaking  of  Judas,  says,  "This 
scripture  must  needs  have  been  fulfilled  which  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  the  mouth  of  David,  spake  before  ;  for  it  is 
written  in  the  book  of  Psalms,"  &c..  Acts  i,  16,  20. 
Here  the  apostle  plainly  attributes  the  Psalms  of  David 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  he  is  speaking  of  them  as  Scrip, 
tures,  (that  is  writings)  and  of  what  is  written  in  them. 

(3.)  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  citing 
the  ninty-fifth  Psalm,  makes  no  mention  of  the  amanuen- 
sis, but  introduces  his  citation  with  the  words,  '•  As  the 
Holy  Ghost  sailh,"  Heb.  iii,  7,  and,  citing  the  thirty-first 
of  Jeremiah,  he  begins,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a 
witness  to  us  ;  for  after  that  he  had  said  before,"  &c., 
Heb.  X,  15. 

(4.)  The  Apostle  Peter  says,  "No  prophecy  of  the 
Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation.  Foi'  the  pro- 
phecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man  ;  but  holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  2  Peter  i,  20,  2L  Here  again  he  isspeaking  of 
the  prophecies  of  Scripture,  or  of  written  prophecy. 

(5.)  Lastly.  St.  Paul  has  given  us  the  same  view  of 
the  subject  in  those  remarkable  words  :  "  From  a  child 
thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to 
make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  fliith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  (is)  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  a«d  (is)  profitable  for  doctrine,"  «&c.,  2  Tim.  iii, 
16,  16. 


252  DIVINE    INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

On  this  passage  observe  :  [1.]  The  apostle  is  speaking 
of  Scriptures  (writings.)  [2.]  That  he  calls  them  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  namely,  those  books  which  the  Jews  received 
as  canonical,  and  were  called  by  them  "  the  holy  writings." 
[3.]  That  he  speaks  of  them  as  being  "  all  given  by  inspi- 
ration  of  God." 

Mr.  G.  says,  "  If  you  refer  to  the  passage,  you  will 
find  the  auxiliary  verb,  is,  printed  in  italics,  and  conse- 
quently not  in  the  original  (ireek.  It  may,  therefore, 
with  equal  propriety,  be  translated  thus:  'All  Scripture 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  is  profitable,  &;c.'  "  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  331.)  On  this  we  remark:  [1.]  That  if  we  admit 
Mr.  G.'s  translation,  still  it  proves  that  tlie  Holy  Scrip- 
lures  are  divinely  inspired  ;  for  the  apostle  having  men- 
tioned the  Holy  Scriptures  as  able  to  make  a  man  wise 
unto  salvation,  assigns  as  a  reason  for  this,  that  "  all 
Scripture  given  by  inspiration  from  God,  is  profitable," 
&c.  "  Holy  Scripture  is  profitable  for  doctrine,"  and 
able  to  make  a  man  wise  unto  salvation,  because  it  is 
"  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  [2.]  But  INIr.  G.  ought  to 
liave  remarked  that  the  second  (is,)  also  is  supplementary ; 
and  that,  although  the  apostle's  words  are  sense  in  Greek, 
there  is,  without  it,  no  sense  in  the  translation.  If  he  had 
then  observed  the  situation  of  the  conjunction,  (and,)  as 
every  English  reader  may  do,  he  would  then  have  seen 
that  the  auxiliary  verb  must  be  supplied  where  our  trans- 
lators have  inserted  the  first  of  the  two.  "  All  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,   and  (is)  profitable,"  &c. 

How  much  then  must  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  have 
been  mistaken,  if  the  holy  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  not  divinely  inspired  ! 

2.  We  now  come  to  the  inquiry,  whether  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament  w  ere  also  inspired. 

It  is  of  some  importance  to  observo'here  that  our  Lord, 
before  his  ascension,  was  pleased  to  promise  to  his  apos- 
tles the  special  gift  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost.  "The  Comforter, 
(said  he,)  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will 
send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring 
all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said 
unto  you,"  John  xiv,  20.  Again  :  "  I  have  yet  many 
things  to  sav  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now. 
Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide 


SAIJRED    WRITINGS.  253 

you  into  all  truth  :  and  he  will  show  you  things  to  corae. 
He  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you,"  John 
xvi,  13-15. 

This  great  gift  was  promised  to  them,  to  fit  fhem  for 
their  apostolic  ministry.  "  When  the  Comforter  is  come, 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall 
testify  of  me  and  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  because  ye 
have  been  with  me  from  the  beginning,"  John  xv,  26,  27. 
"  When  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment,"  John  xvi,  8.  Again  : 
"  Ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you  :  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,"  Acts  i,  8. 
It  is  an  important  question,  Did  not  the  apostles  bear  wit- 
ness  of  him  as  well  by  their  writings  as  by  their  preaching? 

The  Holy  Ghost  was  promised  to  them  not  as  a  tem- 
porary, but  a  permanent  gift.  "  I  will  pray  the  Father, 
(saith  our  Lord,)  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter, 
that  he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever,"  John  xiv,  16  :  that 
is,  says  Mr.  G,,  "  during  your  lives."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  218.) 

This  gift  tliey  actually  received.  "  W  hen  the  day  of 
pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord 
in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto 
them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them  ;  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost," 
Acts  ii,  1-4. 

That  the  Holy  Ghost  was  thus  given  to  prepare  them 
for  preaching*  the  gospel,  so  that  "  they  spake  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance,"  is  an  important  truth.  But 
they  were  equally  inspired  by  it  in  writing  for  the  esta- 
blishment of  Christianity,  and  for  the  edification  of  the 
Churches. 

(1.)  Hence  they  assert  their  apostleship  at  the  head  of 
their  epistles.  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  the  faith  of  God's  elect,  and  the  acknowledging  of 
the  truth  which  is  after  godliness."  (See  Tit.  i,  1  ;  Rom. 
i,  1  ;  1  Cor.  i,  1 ;  2  Cor.  i,  1  ;  Gal.  i,  1  ;  Eph.  i,  1 ;  Col. 

*  Thgi  they  spoke  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  obvious  from  the  follow- 
ing passages,  as  well  as  from  many  others  :— 1  Cor.  ii,  6-16  ;  2  Cor. 
siii,  3j  1  Joha  iv,  6,  &c. 

22 


254  DIVINE    INSPIRATION  OF    THE 

i,  1 ;  1  Tim.  i,  1  ;  2  Tim.  i,  1  ;  Tit.  i,  1  ;  1  Pet.  i,  1  ; 
2  Pet.  i,  1.)  In  this  manner  they  assert  their  apostolic 
authority  in  their  writings. 

(2.)  They  assert  that  the  substance  of  their  writings 
was  the  very  doctrine  which  they  preached,  and  which  they 
had  learned   trom  above.      For  instance  : — "  Moreover, 
brethren,  I  declare  unto  you  the  gospel  which  I  preached 
unto  you,  wiiich  also  you  have  received,  and  wlierein  ye 
stand  :  by  which  also  ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory 
what   I    preached   unto   you,  unless  ye  have  believed  in 
vain,"  1  Cor.  xv,  1,  2.     "  For  this  cause.  I  Paul,  the  pri- 
soner of  Jesus  Christ  for  j'ou  Gentiles,  if  ye  have  heard 
of  the  dispensation  of  the  grace  of  God,  which  is  given  me 
to  you-ward  :  how  that  by  revelation  he  made  known  unto 
me  the  mystery  ;  as  I  wrote  afore  in  few  words,,  whereby 
when  ye  read  ye  may  understand  my  knowledge  in  the 
mystery  of  Christ ;  which  in  other  ages  was  not  made 
known  unto  the  sons  of  men,  as  it  is  now  revealed  unto 
his  holy  apostles  and  prophets  by  the  Spirit,"  Eph.  iii,  1,  5. 
"  That  which  was  from    the  beginning,  which  we  have 
heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have 
looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the  word  of 
life ;  for  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it,  and 
bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal  life  which 
was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us  ;  that 
which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you,  that 
ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us  ;  and  truly  our  t'ellow- 
ship  is  with  the  Father,  and  witli   his  Son  .lesus  Christ. 
All  these  things  write  we  unto  you,  that  your  joy  may  be 
full,"   1  .John  i,  1-4.     "lirethron,  I  write  no  new  com- 
inandiuent  imto  you,  but  an  old  connnandnient,  which  ye 
had  from  the  beginning.     The  old  commandment  is  the 
Word  which  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning,"  1  John  ii,  7. 
(3.)  They  speak   of  their  inspirati<)n  with  respect  to 
their  writings.     Thus  St.  Paul,  giving  his  judgment  to 
widows,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  adds,  "  I  think 
also  that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God,"  1  Cor.  vii,  40.     The 
word   (^oKu  (rendered  I  tiiink,)  does  not  imply  any  doubt, 
but  a  satisfactory  degree  of  certainty.     The  same  apos- 
tie.  speaking  of  the  grand  apostacv,  in  bis  epistle  to  Tim. 
othy,  pn^taces  his  predictions  with, "  Now  the  Spirit  spcak- 
cth  expressly,"  1  Tim.  iv,  1.     In  another  place,  to  the 


SABRED  WRITINGS.  255 

Thessalonians,  he  observes,  "  For  this  we  say  unto  you 
by  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  &c.,  1  Thess.  iv,  15.  St.  John 
says,  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,  and  heard 
beliind  me  a  great  voice,  as  of  a  trumpet,  saying,  I  am 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last :  what  thou  seest, 
write  in  a  book.  Write  the  things  which  thou  hast  seen, 
and  the  things  which  are,  and  the  things  which  shall  be 
hereafter,"  Rev.  i,  10,  11,  19,  Hence  tlie  frequent  repe- 
tition  of  those  words,  "  He  that  hath  an  ear  let  him  hear 
what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  Churches,"  Rev.  ii,  11,  &c. 
Peter  says  that  his  "  beloved  brother,  Paul,  had  written 
according  to  the  wisdom  given  unto  him  ;"  and  classes  his 
epistles  with  "  the  other  Scriptures,"  2  Peter  iii,  15,  16. 
And  lastly  :  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Thessalonians  on  the 
common  duties  of  Christian  morality,  inculcates  them  by 
adding,  "  He  that  despiseth,  despiseth  not  man,  but  God, 
who  hath  also  given  unto  us  his  Holy  Spirit,"  1  Thessa- 
lonians iv,  8. 

(4.)  Hence  they  exercise  an  apostolic  authority  in  their 
epistles.  [1.]  With  respect  to  points  of  doctrine  :  "  Be- 
hold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  circumcised, 
Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify  again  to 
every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law,"  Gal.  v,  2,  3.  [2.]  With  respect  to  points 
of  morality  :  "  But  to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord,  (who 
has  said  nothing  on  this  subject.)  If  any  brother  hath  a 
wife  that  believeth  not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with 
him,  let  him  not  put  her  away.  And  so  ordain  I  in  all 
Churches,"  1  Cor.  vii,  12,  17.  [3.]  With  respect  to  ec- 
clesiastical regulations  :  "  I  have  written  unto  you  not  to 
keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a 
fornicator,  &c.  ;  with  such  a  one  no  not  to  eat.  There- 
fore put  away  from  among  yourselves  that  wicked  per- 
son," 1  Cor.  v,  11,  13.  "Now,  we  command  you,  bre- 
thren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  with- 
draw yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disor- 
derly," 2  Thess.  iii,  6.  "Is  any  sick  among  you '(  let 
him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  Church  ;  and  let  them  pray 
over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord," 
James  v,  14.  [4.]  With  respect  to  the  use  of  spiritual 
gifts  :  -flee  1  Cor.  xiv.  Would  St.  Paul  pretend  to  regu- 
late    those  who  were  inspired,  even  the  prophets  them- 


256  DIVINE   INSPIRATION    OF   THE 

selves,  unless  he  were  inspired  in  so  doing  ?  [5.]  And 
lastly  :  with  respect  to  the  behaviour  of  all  the  subordinate 
officers  of  the  Churcli :  instances  of  which  abound  in  the 
epistles  to  Timothy,  and  in  that  to  Titus. 

(5.)  And  hence  they  assert  the  apostolic  authority  of 
their  writings  :  '•  It'  any  man  tiiink  himself  to  he  a  prophet, 
or  spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I 
write  unto  you   are   the   commandments  of  the   Lord," 

1  Cor.  XV,  37.  "  Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and 
hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether 
by  word  or  our  epistle,"  2  Thess.  ii,  15.  "And  if  any 
man  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and 
have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be  asliamed," 

2  Thess.  iii,  14.  "  These  things  (which  I  have  written) 
command  and  teach,"  1  Tim.  iv,  11.  The  reader  may 
see  also  Col.  iv,  16  ;  1  Thess.  v,  27  ;  1  Tim.  vj  21  ;  vi, 
13,  14  ;  1  Pet.  v,  12;  2  Pet.  i,  15  ;  iii,  1,  2  ;  Jude  3  ; 
and  Rev.  xxii,  18,  19. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was 
promised  to  the  apostles  to  guide  them  into  all  truth,  and 
to  make  them  competent  witnesses  of  Christ,  was  with 
them  in  their  writing  as  well  as  in  their  public  ministry, 
and  supported  that  apostolic  autiiority  with  which  they 
preached.  The  arguments  whicii  Mr.  G.  has  urged  on 
the  contrary  part,  are  not  levelled  directly  against  the 
preceding  observations,  and  therefore  it  is  necessary 
to  examine  them  only  so  far  as  they  are  apparently 
relevant. 

1.  "In  order  to  establish  the  truth  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, was  any  thing  else  necessary  than  that  we  should 
have  complete  evidence  of  the  facts,  and  of  the  divine 
origin  of  the  doctrines?"     (Vol.  ii,  p.  323.) 

It  was  necessary,  after  the  facts  liad  taken  place,  that 
the  doctrine  founded  on  them  should  be  deduced  from 
them,  that  the  consistency  of  that  doctrine  with  the  pre- 
ceding dispensations  should  be  explained,  and  that  the 
doctrine  itself  should  be  vindicated  against  ordinary  cavils. 
This  could  be  done  only  bv  the  aid  of  the  Spirit,  whose 
office  it  was  to  bring  thini;s  to  the '•remembrance"  of  the 
witness,  to  "teach"  them  the  truth,  and  to  prepare  them 
to  be  tlic  immediate  "  witnesses"  of  Jesus  Christ. 


RACKED    WRITINGS. 


25T 


2.  "  But  the  highest  degreeof  inspiration  did  not  confer 
infallibility."     (Vol.  ii,  pp.  322,  348.) 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  infallibility  of 
the  sacred  writers  in  their  personal  conduct,  and  that  in 
their  delivery  of  the  divine  revelation  ;  and  between  their 
fallibility  in  religious  opinions  and  their  being  permitted 
to  propagate  their  errors.  In  their  moral  conduct,  Moses 
and  Paul  were  free  agents ;  in  their  prophetic  character 
they  were  the  organs  of  the  divine  Spirit.  As  moral, 
agents  they  were  capable  of  doing  wrong :  as  men  in-. 
spired  they  recorded  their  own  faults,  for  a  warning  to 
other  men.  Again:  Peter  might  be  fallible,  and  refuse 
to  go  to  Cornelius;  but  yet  his  error  was  not  permitted 
to  overrule  the  divine  purposes.  He  is  taught  by  a  divine 
revelation  what  his  prejudice  had  not  permitted  him  pre- 
viously to  learn.  He  might  prove  his  fallibility  by  sepa- 
rating himself  from  the  Gentiles  for  fear  of  the  Jews ;  but 
the  Apostle  Paul,  writing  for  the  edification  of  the  church, 
mentions  it  only  as  a  fault.  His  error  is  not  permitted  to 
propagate  ;  for  while  it  is  recorded  it  is  condemned. 

3.  "  On  some  specific  occasions  a  claim  is  laid  to  a 
superintending  divine  inspiration.  What  can  be  more 
self  evident  than  that  by  thus  asserting  that  they  occa- 
sionally  spoke  by  divine  inspiration,  they  did  not  make  it 
as  a  general  claim?"     (Vol.  ii,  p.  341.) 

How  weak  must  be  that  cause  which  can  be  supported 
only  by  such  an  argument  as  this !  When  a  person,  on 
some  more  important  occasions,  asserts  the  authority  by 
which  he  speaks,  can  we  infer  that  he  does  not  speak  by 
the  same  authority  at  all  times,  because  he  is  not  perpe- 
tually ringing  it  in  our  ears?  There  is,  however,  in  Mr. 
G.'s  argument  another  important  flaw.  The  cases  which  he 
has  adduced  on  this  occasion  are  not  cases  of  mere  "su- 
perintending divine  inspiration."  St.  Paul  had  received 
the  whole  gospel,  including  the  commandments  delivered 
by  Jesus  Christ,  the  design  of  his  death  and  resurrection, 
and  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  supper,  by  revelation  :  not 
by  a  mere  "  superintending  divine  inspiration,"  but  either 
by  suggestion  or  verbal  declaration.  If,  therefore,  in  speak- 
ing on  these  subjects,  he  asserts  the  authority  by  which  he 
speak*,  he  cannot  be  understood  as  abandoning,  on  other  oc- 
casions, his  "  claim  to  a  superintending  divine  inspiration." 
22* 


258  DIVINE    INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

4.  But  "  in  repeated  distinct  passages  they  absolutely 
disclaim  a  divine  inspiration  in  their  writings." 

(1.)  "They  declare  that  they  have  not  dominion  over 
the  faith  of  their  followers,  but  are  helpers  of  their  joy." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  341.)  When  the  Scriptures  are  thus  quoted 
for  a  specific  purpose,  the  occasion  gives  them  a  certain 
colouring,  and  we  are  very  apt  to  suppose,  at  the  first  view, 
that  they  are  well  applied.  It  often  happens,  however, 
that  if  he  that  quotes  them  would  attempt  to  draw  out  his 
argument  at  length,  he  would  himself  perceive  its  fallacy. 
This  is  precisely  the  case  in  the  instance  before  us.  Mr. 
G.  has  quoted  this  passage  to  prove  that  the  apostles  were 
not  inspired  with  the  knowledge  of  those  doctrines  which 
their  disciples  were  called  upon  to  believe :  and  in  the 
very  same  page  he  has  cited  the  words  of  the  same  apos- 
tle to  the  same  church,  in  which  that  apostle  asserts  that 
he  himself  had  "  delivered"  to  them  that  which  he  had 
•'  received"  by  divine  revelation,  which  they  had  «*  be- 
lieved" and  "  by  which  they  were  saved,"  1  Cor.  xv,  1-3. 
Perhaps  the  judicious  reader  will  be  of  opinion  that  the 
apostle  meant  to  say,  he  had  no  lordly  "  dominion  over 
their  faith"  to  subvert  it.  This  sense  agrees  with  the 
context,  in  which  St.  Paul  subjoins  by  way  of  argument, 
'*  for  by  faith  ye  stand."  Thus  understood,  it  is  precisely 
what  he  has  said  to  the  Galatians  :  "  Though  we,  or  aa 
angel  from  heaven,  preacii  any  otlier  gospel  unto  you  than 
that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be  accursed,"  Gal.  i,  8. 
The  apostles  could  "  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  but  for 
the  truth  :"  they  had  "  no  authority  for  the  destruction 
of  the  church,  but  for  its  edification." 

(2.)  ''They  address  themselves  to  the  reason  of  their 
disciples,  and  appeal  to  their  understanding  whether  they 
were  right."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  342.)  .\nd  why  not  I  ^^'hy  may 
not  he  who  speaks  with  divine  authority  appeal  to  the 
judgment  of  his  hearers  ?  Did  not  our  Lord  himself  make 
similar  appeals  ?  '*  Yea,  and  why  even  of  yourselves, 
judge  ye  not  what  is  right  V  Luke  xii,  57.  And  how  does- 
this  prove  that  he  did  not  speak  by  divine  inspiration  1 

(3.)  "  .St.  Paul  says,  on  some  occasions,  *  I  speak  this 
by  permissiion,  noi  of  conimandment ;' — '  to  the  rest  speak 
I,  not  the  Lord  ;' — '  I  have  no  conimandment  of  the  Lord, 
yqt  I  give  my  judgment.' "    (Vol.  ii,  p.  342.)    Very  true,. 


SA«EED    WRITINGS.  259 

and  thus  he  makes  a  distinction  between  those  things 
which  "  were  not  the  deductions  of  reason,  but  were  im- 
parted  to  him  by  Jesus  Christ,"  and  those  thing«  which 
were  the  deductions  of  hi*' inspired  reason.  Hence, 
while  on  such  occasions  he  acknowledges  that  Jesus 
Christ  had  himself  given  no  commandment  on  these 
points,  (which  is  the  true  meaning  of  those  expressions,) 
he  claims  the  superintendency  of  the  Spirit  in  his  advices. 
First  he  declares  that  he  gave  his  judgment  as  one  that 
had  "  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful,"  1  Cor. 
vii,  25  :  by  which  preface  he  asserts  his  apostolic  autho- 
rity. Secondly  he  says,  "  I  speak  this  by  permission," 
1  Cor.  vii,  6  :  of  which  permission  he  could  know  nothing 
but  by  inspiration.  Thirdly,  he  concludes,  "  I  think  also 
that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God,"  1  Cor.  vii,  40  ;  and  thus 
claims,  at  least,  a  superintendent  inspiration. 

(4.)  But  Luke  makes  "a  positive  assertion  that  he 
writes  his  gospel,  of  his  own  individual  authority,  without 
any  command,  or  supernatural  influence."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
342.)  Indeed  he  does  not  !  Nor  does  he  "disclaim"  a 
supernatural  influence.  This  is  one  of  the  grand  mis- 
takes ;  that  a  man  can  do  nothing  under  "  a  supernatural 
influence,"  for  which  his  own  mind  has  conceived  a 
reason.  But  why  cannot  God  lead  men  by  their  reason, 
as  well  as  without  it  ?  Until  this  question  be  answered, 
"  this  of  itself"  is  not  "  sufiicient  to  settle  the  point  in 
agitation."  So  far  is  Luke  from  conceding  the  fact  of 
his  inspiration,  that  some  critics  think  he  has  positively 
asserted  it.  "  It  seemed  good  to  me,  (he  says,)  having 
had  perfect  understanding  of  all  things  avuOev,  from  above, 
to  write  unto  thee,"  Luke  i,  3.  This  is  the  sense  in 
which  avudev  is  used  in  John  iii,  3,  7,  31  ;  xix,  11 ;  Jamea 
i,  17  ;  iii,  15,  17. 

5.  "  The  reasonings  with  which  the  books  composing 
the  New  Testament  abound,  evidently  show  that  they 
were  not  written  under  the  influence  of  plenary  inspira- 
tion."    (Vol.  ii,  p.  343.) 

Not  at  all.  Does  not  God  himself  reason  with  man- 
kind, and  say,  "  Come  and  let  us  reason  togteher  ?"  Isa.  i, 
18.  Did  not  Moses  reason,  when  he  says,  "  Do  ye  thus 
requite  tiie  Lord?  O  loolish  people  and  unwise!  is  not 
be  thy  Father  that  hath  bought  thee  ?  hath  he  not  made 


260  DIVINE    IXSPIRATION    OF    THE 

thee  ?"  Deut.  xxxii,  6.  And  yet  Mr.  G.  grants  that  he  had 
"  the  highest  degree  of  inspiration."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  319.) 
Did  not  Jesus  Christ  reason,  and  reason  from  a  prece- 
ding divine  revelation,  when  he  said,  "  Have  ye  not  read 
that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by  God,  saying,  I  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob  ?  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  liv. 
ing?"  Matt.  xxii.  31,  32.  And  was  not  he  inspired? 
Did  not  St.  Paul  "  reason  of  righteousness,  temperance, 
and  judgment  to  come,''  before  Felix  ?  Acts  xxiv,  25. 
And  did  not  our  Lord  say,  "  When  they  deliver  you  up,  it 
is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  which 
speaketh  in  you  ?''  Matt,  xvii,  20.  Where  then  is  the 
inconsistency  between  reasoning  and  divine  inspiration  ? 

This  is  a  point  of  great  importance.  The  Socinians 
uniformly  assume,  that  there  can  be  no  divine  inspiration 
but  where  divine  truths  are  imparted  without  the  deductions 
of  reason  in  the  mind  of  the  recipient.  Nothing  can  be 
more  foreign  from  truth.  Our  Lord  promised  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Spirit  to  the  apostles,  when  they  should  "  be 
brought  before  governors  and  kings  for  his  sake :"  and 
this  inspiration  was  such  that  he  thought  proper  to  say, 
it  should  not  be  they  that  spoke,  but  tlie  Spirit  of  their 
Father.  And  yet  there  is  no  occasion  on  which  the 
apostles  reason  on  the  revelations  which  they  had  previ- 
ously received,  more  than  in  their  apologies.  (See  all  the 
apologies  of  Peter  and  Paul  in  the  book  of  Acts.) 

So  true  it  is  that  the  apostles  were  inspired  w  hen  they 
reasoned  on  the  truths  which  hud  been  previously  sug- 
gested to  them. 

6.  "They  often  speak  with  such  uncertainty  as  to 
render  it  incredible  that  the  sentiment  was  at  the  time 
dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  345.) 

(1.)  W(;  do  not  argue  that  every  ^entunent  wliich  tiic 
apostles  wrote,  for  any  purpose  whatever,  was  dictated  by 
the  S|>irit  of  God,  any  more  than  that  (Jod  dictated  to 
David,  tiiat  "  there  is  no  CJod." 

(2.)  Much  less  do  we  suppose  that  every  thing  was 
dictated  concerning  wliicli  thev  wrote.  Mr.  G.  has  in- 
stanced in  such  passages  as  the  following  :  "  I  know  not 
wliether  I  baptized  any  other."  "  I  will  come  to  you 
shortly,  if  the  Lord  will."     Now  what  is  it  that  the  apos- 


SACRED    WRITINGS.  261 

tie  directly  affirms  in  such  cases,  but  that  he  was  uncer- 
tain  ?  He  knew  that  he  did  not  know.  And  what  he 
wrote  he  wrote  with  truth.  Who  supposes  that  the 
apostles  knew  every  thing  by  inspiration?  Who  contends 
that,  when  they  were  confessedly  inspired,  they  were  at 
that  time  omniscient  ?  It  was  enough  that  they  knew  that 
which  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  write.  Their  igno- 
rance was  their  own,  and  not  God's  ;  but  it  does  not  hinder 
that  they  were  under  a  divine  influence.  It  cannot  be 
,  necessary  for  a  man  to  tell  a  lie,  in  proof  that  he  is  in- 
spired.  The  apostles  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  : 
but  "  they  had  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels." 

7.  "  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  often  make 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  a  very  incorrect 
manner.  Is  it  not  a  grievous  reflection  upon  the  moral 
character  of  the  Deity  to  represent  him  as  dictating  a 
quotation  from  a  prophet  to  different  writers,  and  yet 
inspiring  them  to  give  that  quotation  inaccurately  and 
variously  ?"     (Vol.  ii,  p.  351.) 

(1.)  It  is  not  necessary  to  inspiration  that  words 
should  be  dictated, 

(2.)  It  is  not  necessary,  even  if  God  should  dictate 
the  words  of  a  quotation,  that  the  words  should  be,  with- 
out any  variation,  the  precise  words  of  the  original  author. 
It  is  the  sense  that  is  to  be  quoted  ;  and  if  the  sense 
be  fairly  quoted,  the  words  may  be  more  or  less  varied, 
according  to  the  particular  purpose  for  which  the  sense 
is  quoted. 

(3.)  In  addition  to  this,  some  allowance  is  to  be  made 
for  a  translation.  If  it  were  necessary  that  quotations 
from  the  original  should  be  always  verbally  the  same  ;  it 
is  not  equally  necessary  that  one  person  should  always 
translate  the  same  words  in  the  same  manner.  Now  the 
fact  is,  that  the  passages  in  question  are  not  properly 
quotations,  but  translations.  And  why  should  such  a 
barrenness  of  language  be  attributed  to  the  Spirit  of  God 
as  would  render  it  necessary  always  to  use  the  same  words 
on  similar  occasions  ?  Had  all  the  apostles  translated  the 
same  passsage  in  the  same  manner,  it  would  have  been 
deemed  a  stiff*,  unnecessary  monotony,  unworthy  of  the 
Spirit  hy  which  they  wrote. 

(4.)  Many  of  the  mistakes  which  Mr.  G.  has  enume- 


262  DIVI>E    INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

rated,  (vol.  ii,  p.  252,)  are  not  necessarily  imputed  to  the 
original  writers,  but  to  subsequent  copyists.  Some  of 
thcni  have  been  rectified  Ironi  different  manuscripts ; 
and  all  of  them,  as  he  grants,  are  "  unimportant."  (Vol, 
ii,  p.  353.) 

8.  "  In  the  last  place  :  in  the  writings  of  the  evange- 
lists there  are  inconsistencies  and  occasional  contradic- 
tions which,  in  my  estimation,  render  it  utterly  impossi- 
ble that  they  should  have  written  under  the  influence  of 
a  divine  inspiration."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  358.) 

(1.)  The  first  case  of  inconsistency  and  contradiction 
is  the  account  which  the  evangelists  give  of  the  speech  of 
Jairus  to  our  Lord,  concerning  his  daughter. 

Matthew  makes  Jairus  say,  "  My  daughter  apn  steIiv. 
T7ja£v,  is  now  at  her  end."  The  evangelist  could  not 
mean  by  this  expression  to  say  that  she  was  positively 
dead ;  because  he  subjoins.  Come  and  lay  thy  hand  upon 
her,  and  (not  she  shall  be  raised  again,)  but  Cr^aeraL,  she 
shall  (not  die,  but)  live,"  Matt,  ix,  18.  Luke  makes  Jai- 
rus say,  '■'■  AizEdvTjan.Ei.v,  she  lay  dying:"  i.  e.,  when  the 
father  left  her.  Here,  then,  is  neither  inconsistency  nor 
contradiction,  unless  it  be  forced  upon  them.  Again  : 
Luke  says,  "  nq,  a  certain  person  came  and  told  him  she 
was  dead."  Mark  says,  "  Some  came  and  told  him  .she 
was  dead."  Now  here  is  neither  inconsistency  nor  con- 
tradiction,  unless  Luke  had  said  '•  only  one"  came.  But 
it  is  not  only  possible,  but  perfectly  natural,  to  suppose 
that  one  came  before  the  rest,  and  that  Luke  satisfies 
himself  with  mentioning  the  first,  and  Mark  mentions 
them  all. 

(2.)  The  second  case  of  inconsistency  and  contradic- 
tion is  that  of  blind  IJartimeus. 

Matthew  states  that  as  Jesus  departed  from  Jericho  he 
healed  two  blind  men.  Matt,  xx,  29.  ^Luke  states  that 
this  miracle  took  place,  ev  tu  Eyyi(eLv,  which  Doctor  Dod- 
dridge renders  "  while  he  was  yet  near  to  Jericho."  For 
this  the  doctor  assigns  several  reasons,  especially  the 
LXX.  on  Isa.  1,  8,  and  Jcr.  .\xiii,  23,  where  they  use  the 
same  phrase.  If  this  be  just,  here  is  neither  inconsistency 
nor  contradiction. 

But  "Mark  and  Luke  (Mr.  G.  says)  state  there  to 
have  been  only  one  blind  man,  while  Mathew  says  two." 


SACRED    WRITINGS.  263 

(Vol.  ii,  p.  360.)  The  reader  will,  perhaps,  turn  to  the 
evangelists  ;  but  he  will  not  find  that  either  Mark  or  Luke 
says  there  was  "  only  one."  They  mention  on^but  this 
is  not  inconsistent  with  their  being  more  than  one,  or  any 
direct  contradiction  of  what  Matthew  says.  Bartimeus 
might  be  best  known,  and  his  case  most  striking,  and,  there- 
fore, two  of  the  evangelists,  passing  over  the  other,  might 
mention  him  only. 

(3.)  The  third  instance  of  inconsistency  and  contradic- 
tion is  in  the  case  of  the  two  thieves  who  were  crucified 
with  our  Lord.  Here,  again,  to  support  his  argument, 
Mr.  G.  makes  Luke  say,  "  positively,  that  only  one  of 
them  reviled  him."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  360.)  With  what  degree 
of  truth  the  reader  will  easily  know.  The  fact  appears  to 
be,  that  at  first  both  the  thieves  reviled  him.  One  of  them 
afterward  repented,  while  the  other  continued  his  con- 
tumely. The  penitent  thief  then  rebuked  his  wicked  com- 
panion. Now  Matthew  relates  particularly  the  obloquy 
■which  was  cast  upon  the  Saviour  by  all  around  him,  and, 
therefore,  mentions  their  both  reviling  him.  Luke  is  rela- 
ting the  conversion  of  one  of  the  thieves,  and  the  imme- 
diate fruit  of  it,  (which  Matthew  omits.)  and,  therefore, 
dwells  upon  that  part  of  the  awful  scene  which  was  subse- 
quent to  the  conversion  of  the  penitent.  The  one  omits 
what  the  other  relates  ;  but  inconsistency  or  contradiction 
has  no  existence  between  them. 

(4.)  The  last  case  of  inconsistency  and  contradiction 
relates  to  the  inscription  which  was  fixed  over  the  head 
of  Jesus  Christ,  at  his  crucifixion.  It  would  be  tiresome 
to  the  reader  to  go  over  a  string  of  remarks  similar  to 
those  already  made.  The  truth  is,  the  evangelists  differ 
from  each  other ;  but  without  any  inconsistency  or  con- 
tradiction  :  and  there  is  no  difference  between  the  evan- 
gelists  which  is  more  easily  accounted  for.  The  inscrip. 
tion  was  written  in  three  languages  ;  and  undoubtedly 
according  to  the  genius  of  each  of  them.  Suppose  that  in 
Hebrew  it  was  written,  "The  King  of  the  Jews."  This 
agrees  with  the  account  which  Mark  has  given.  If  this 
Hebrew  inscription,  as  the  first  of  the  three,  was  trans- 
lated  by  Luke,  according  to  the  genius  of  the  Greek,  he 
would  "Tender  it,  "  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews.  Sup- 
pose  then    Matthew   to  have   given   the  proper  Greek 


264  THE    FALLEN    STATK    OF    MANKIND. 

inscription,  and  John  the  Latin  translated  into  Greek,  all 
their  ditTerent  statements  are  accounted  for.  But  Mr.  G., 
to  serve  his  purpose,  takes  it  into  l)is  head,  first,  that  the 
three  inscriptions  agreed  verbally  with  each  other  ;  and 
secondly,  that  each  evangelist  "professes  to  give  the  actual 
inscription  ;"  and,  having  proved  a  variation  from  each 
other,  he  shrewdly  denominates  it  inconsistency  and  con- 
tradiction. 

In  concluding  this  subject  one  thing  must  again  be  re- 
peated. Mr.  G.  takes  for  granted  that  there  is  no  inspi- 
ration but  that  of  immediate  suggestion  :  and  against  this 
he  points  all  his  artillery.  But  in  facts,  of  which  the  sacred 
writers  were  witnesses,  immediate  suggestion  was  not 
necessary,  even  to  the  exactness  of  the  history.  The  evan- 
gelists related  what  they  saw  and  heard:  and  it  was 
enough  that  the  Spirit  of  truth  should  bring  things  to  their 
remembrance  and  give  them  to  understand  them,  that,  the 
promise  of  Jesus  being  fulfilled  in  them,  they,  according 
to  his  design,  might  bear  witness  concerning  him. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Of  the  Fallen  State  of  Mankind. 

The  present  inquiry  relates  to  the  condition  of  human 
nature,  independent  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  blessings 
of  that  gracious  covenant  of  which  he  is  the  Mediator. 
According  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  many  blessings 
are  bestowed  on  mankind,  which  are  not  hereditary,  but 
which  arc  the  gift  of  redeeming  grace  :  and  many  good 
elfects  are  thereby  produced,  which  are  not  nntural,  but 
supernatural,  and  which  are  to  be  attributed  to  him  by  whom 
we  are  created  anew  in  Clirist  Jesus  unto  gocd  works. 
As  the  present  design  is  to  dolineate  the  true  state  of  man- 
kind, in  order  to  ascertain  tlieir  want  of  a  Saviour,  and  of 
every  branch  of  the  Christian  salvation,  "the  gift  of  CJod 
by  Jesus  Christ"  must  be  either  left  entirely  out  of  the* 
question^or  introduced  as  collateral  evidence, on  the  prin- 
ciple  on  wliich  we  prove  the  sickness  of  a  patient  from  the 
character  of  his  physician. 


THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF  MANKIND.  265 

The  subject  divides  itself  into  two  parts,  of  which  the 
£irst  relates  to  that  moral  depravity  which  is  transmitted  to 
us  from  our  first  parents  ;  the  second  relates  to  mir  being 
legally  involved  in  the  consequences  of  their  sin. 

First.  Of  that  moral  depravity  which  is  transmitted  to 
us  from  our  first  parents. 

It  is  generally  granted  by  those  who  are  not  determined 
to  controvert  the  most  obvious  facts  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  those  who  are  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  their  mind, 
mankind  have  been,  and  still  are,  desperately  wicked. — 
This  melancholy  fact  even  the  heathens  have  seen,  ac- 
knowledged, and  lamented.  Their  iron  age  is  a  striking 
picture  of  the  consummate  wickedness  of  mankind.  So- 
crates confessed  that  he  was  prone  to  the  grossest  vices. 
Seneca  laments  that  "  all  vices  are  in  all  men."  Proper- 
tius,  that  "every  body  has  a  vice  to  which  he  is  inclined 
by  nature."  And  Horace,  that  "  mankind  rush  into 
wickedness,  and  always  desire  what  is  forbidden  ;"  that 
"we  are  foolish  enough  to  attack  heaven  itself;"  and 
that  "  our  repeated  crimes  do  not  suffer  the  God  of  hea- 
ven to  lay  by  his  wrathful  thunderbolts." 

The  universal  wickedness  of  mankind  is,  however,  a 
truth,  for  the  confirmation  of  which  we  cannot  entirely 
depend  on  their  own  opinion  or  testi?nony.  Their 
confessions  may  easily  be  attributed  to  a  voluntary  or 
mistaken  humility  :  and  their  evidence  against  each  otlier 
to  malice  and  envy.  Even  the  knowledge  of  ourselves 
may  possibly  be  an  improper  standard  of  the  human  cha- 
racter  :  and  our  experience  may  be  too  limited  to  become 
the  foundation  of  a  sentence  on  a  whole  species.  But 
we  can  place  unlimited  confidence  in  the  testimony  of  the 
Most  High:  to  whose  decision  we  the  rather  appeal, 
because  "  that  which  is  highly  esteemed  among  men  is, 
(often.)  in  his  sight,  an  abomination."  Men  are  apt  to 
'•judge  according  to  outward  appearances  ;"  whereas  God 
"  trietb  the  hearts,"  and  "judgeth  righteous  judgment." 
Mankind  are  frequently  tempted  by  self-love  to  flatter 
each  other,  and  to  extenuate  each  other's  crimes  ;  but 
"  the  judgments  of  God  are  true,  and  righteous  alto- 
gether." There  is  no  counsel  against  the  Lord,  nor 
any  ap]Teal  from  his  decision.  "  Let  God  be  true,  and 
every  man  a  liar ;  as  it  is  written.  That  thou  mightest 
23 


266  THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND. 

be  justified  in  thy  sayings,  and  overcome  when  thou  art 
judged." 

According  to  the  unerring  testimony  of  divine  truths 
the  first  man  born  of  woman  was  "  of  the  wicked  one, 
and  slew  his  brother,  because  his  own  works  were  evil, 
and  his  brother's  righteous,"  1  John  iii,  12.  Rehgion 
was  set  up  in  the  family  of  Seth,  who  "  began  to  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord,"  Gen.  iv,  26.  But  "  when  men 
began  to  multiply  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters 
were  born  unto  them,  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters 
of  men  that  they  were  fair  ;  and  they  took  them  wives  of 
all  which  they  chose.  And  the  Lord  said,  My  Spirit  shall 
not  always  strive  with  man,  for  that  he  also  is  tlesh  :  yet 
his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years.  There 
were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those  days  ;  and  also  after 
that,  when  the  sons  of  God  came  in  unto  the  daughters 
of  men,  and  they  bare  children  unto  them,  the  same  became 
mighty  men,  which  (rather  than  good  men)  were  of  old, 
men  of  renown.  And  God  saw  that  tlie  wickedness  of 
man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of 
the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually.  And 
it  repented  the  Lord  that  he  had  made  man  on  the  cartii. 
and  it  grieved  him  at  his  heart.  And  the  Lord  said,  1  will 
destroy  man  whom  I  have  created — for  it  rcpenteth  me 
that  I  have  made  them."  "  The  earth  also  was  corrupt 
before  God,  and  the  earth  was  filled  with  violence.  And 
God  looked  upon  the  earth,  and  behold  it  was  corrupt  : 
for  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth.  And 
God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come  before 
me  :  for  the  earth  is  filled  with  violence  through  them  : 
and  behold,  I  will  destroy  them  with  the  earth,"  Gen. 
vi,  1-13. 

After  God  had  purged  the  earth  by  a  flood,  and  had 
entered  anew  into  covenant  with  Noafi  and  his  family, 
the  truths  of  religion  were  soon  erased  from  the  minds  of 
mankind,  and  its  institutions  were  soon  neglected.  To 
renew  its  obliterated  traces,  and  to  prepare  tiie  world  for 
the  coming  of  the  seed  of  the  woman.  Aluani.  a  "  Svrian, 
ready  to  perish."  was  called  from  the  hou'^e  ol'  idolatry  to 
become  a  witness  of  Jehovah.  And  what  was  the 
character  of  his  prog(>ny  !  Alas  !  their  unbelief,  obduracy, 
(iisoi)cdicnce,  murmurings,  rebellions,  and  idolatries  arc 


THE    FAf  LEN  STATE    OF   MANKIND.  267 

known  from  tlieir  whole  history.  It  was  not  without  rea- 
son  that  God  bore  witness  against  them  by  his  prophet : 
♦•  Hear,  O  heavens,  and  give  ear,  O  earth;  for  the  Lord 
hatli  spoken  :  I  have  nourished  and  brought  up  children, 
and  they  have  rebelled  against  me.  The  ox  knoweth  his 
owner,  and  the  ass  his  master's  crib  :  but  Israel  doth  not 
know,  my  people  doth  not  consider.  Ah,  sinful  nation,  a 
people  laden  with  iniquity,  a  seed  of  evil  doers,  children 
that  are  corrupters  !  they  have  forsaken  the  Lord,  they 
have  provoked  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  unto  anger,  they 
are  gone  away  backward.  Why  should  ye  be  stricken 
any  more  ?  Ye  will  revolt  more  and  more.  The  whole 
head  is  sick,  and  tlie  whole  heart  faint.  From  the  sole 
of  the  foot  even  unto  the  head  there  is  no  soundness  in 
it ;  but  wounds,  and  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores."  It  is 
true  they  were  very  religious ;  but  their  religion  was  only 
the  garb  of  hypocrisy,  and  the  cloak  of  wickedness. 
^'To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices 
unto  me  ?  saith  the  Lord  :  I  am  full  of  the  burnt-otlerings 
of  rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts  ;  and  I  delight  not  in 
the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats.  When 
ye  come  to  appear  before  me,  who  hath  required  this  at 
your  hands  to  tread  my  courts  ?  Your  hands  are  full  of 
blood,"  Isa.  i,  2-15.  . 

Nor  did  the  calamities  of  a  long  captivity  produce 
among  them  any  lasting  reformation.  They  were  still  "  a 
disobedient  and  gainsaying  people."  Purged  from  gross 
idolatries,  their  religion  was  still  formal,  and  their  heart 
worldly.  When  the  harbinger  of  the  Messiah  announced 
the  coming  of  their  Deliverer,  so  long  as  they  were  left 
satisfied  with  themselves,  and  were  permitted  to  indulge 
in  their  worldly  expectations,  they  rejoiced  in  his  testi. 
mony.  But,  when  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God 
unmasked  their  hypocrisy,  and  the  humility  of  his  appear- 
ance  cut  off"  their  secular  prospects,  they  soon  neglected 
him,  forsook  him,  derided  him,  contradicted  him,  blas- 
pliemed  him,  laid  snares  for  him,  meditated  his  destruction, 
conspired  against  him,  seized  him,  arraigned  him,  accused 
him,  condemned  him,  and  procured  his  crucifixion  ;  and 
still  proceeded  to  "  fill  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquity, 
till  wrath  came  upon  them  to  the  uttermost." 

In  the  njeantime,  what  was  the  iqoral  state  of  the  rest 


270  THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF   MANKi:TD. 

That  evil  habits  have  added  very  much  to  some  other 
cause,  and  have  increased  the  difficulty  of  our  cure,  is 
readily  granted.  It  is  not  easy  for  those  "  to  do  good, 
that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil,"  Jer.  xiii,  23.  But  evil 
habits  are  the  effect  as  well  as  the  cause  of  evil  practices. 
The  evil  practices  which  induce  evil  habits  are,  therefore, 
still  to  be  accounted  fur. 

3.  It  is  said  that  "  the  prevalence  of  bad  example  is  the 
true  cause  of  universal  sinfulness." 

To  this  it  is  answered  :  (1.)  That  the  first  sinner  can 
have  had  no  bad  example  before  him.  Cain,  for  instance, 
had  no  example  of  persecution  and  murder,  by  which  he 
was  led  astray.  Wickedness  therefore  existed  before  bad 
example.  (2.)  There  must  have  been  a  general  preva- 
lence  of  bad  conduct,  before  bad  examples  could  prevail. 
(3.)  There  have  been  good  examples  set  before  mankind, 
as  well  as  bad  ones.  If  example,  therefore,  be  the  only 
thing  which  governs  the  conduct  of  mankind,  especially 
as  it  is  so  much  more  reasonable  to  copy  a  good  than  a 
bad  example,  the  good  and  the  bad  must  have  divided  the 
world  pretty  equally  between  them.  We  have  still  to  in- 
quire, therefore,  what  is  the  source  of  bad  examples,  and 
what  is  the  reason  that  mankind  so  readily  follow  them. 

4.  It  is  said  that  "  a  deiective  education  is  the  cause  of 
universal  wickedness." 

Education  is  undoubtedly  Qepa-aa  -^vxrjc,  the  medicine 
of  a  diseased  soul.  "  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,"  said  our 
Lord,  "  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free,"  John  viii,  32. 
The  want  of  it  may  therefore  be  one  important  cause  of 
the  continuance  of  the  malady  :  but  it  cannot  be  the  ori- 
ginal cause  of  its  existence.  The  want  of  medicine  may 
leave  men  the  unresisting  prey  of  disease  ;  but  we  are  not 
wont  to  attribute  the  existence  of  a  disease  to  the  want  of 
medicine.  Where  there  is  no  disease,  ihere  is  no  need  of 
medicine;  tor  "  tliey  that  are  whole  have  no  nerd  of  a 
physician."  The  cause  of  the  spiritual  sickness  of  man- 
kind  i.s,  th(>rcfore,  yet  to  be  sought.  And  brside  this: 
Why  have  mankind  neglected  the  e<lucation  of  their  off- 
spring ?  And  why  do  the  .'souls  of  men  resist  the  healing 
inlluence  of  education  /  Still  we  are  at  a  loss  ! 

5.  "  But  if  one  of  those  do  not  account  for  the  universal 
wickedness  of  mankind,  mav  not  the  occurrence  of  them 


THE    FALI^N    STATE   OF   MANKIND.  271 

all  produce  this  phenomenon  ?  Suppose  the  first  sin  to 
have  been  occasioned  by  mere  abuse  of  free  agency. 
This  first  sin  may  have  corrupted  the  heart  of , the  indi- 
vidual, and  so  opened  a  flood  gate  of  iniquity.  From  this 
source  many  sins  have  sprung  forth.  Sinful  practices 
have  grown  into  sinful  habits  ;  and  sinful  habits  have 
been  fruitful  of  farther  sinful  practices.  The  sinful  habits 
and  practices  of  the  individual  have  prevented  the  reli- 
gious education  of  his  offspring,  and  have  been  the  cause 
of  bad  example,  which,  not  being  counteracted  by  proper 
instruction,  has  been  productive  of  universal  sinfulness." 

This  is  putting  the  case  in  its  strongest  light.  But  let 
us  examine  it.  (1.)  This  hypothesis  embraces  all  the 
consequences  which  will  follow  from  the  common  one,  and 
therefore  makes  but  little  difference  in  the  result.  (2.) 
It  deserves  all  the  praise  of  human  invention  ;  for  it  can- 
not  be  proved  from  revelation.  The  inventor  of  it  was, 
therefore,  undoubtedly  a  man  of  genius.  (3.)  There  is, 
however,  a  lameness  in  it  which  does  not  belong  to  truth. 
It  accounts  tolerably  well  for  the  defection  of  an  individual; 
but  not  at  all  for  that  of  all  his  offspring.  It  supposes  his 
oflfspring  to  be  naturally  upright,  and  yet  supposes  them 
to  fall  without  an  adequate  cause.  It  supposes  them  to 
want  medicine  (education)  before  they  are  diseased,  and 
to  be  so  disordered  as  universally  to  follow  a  bad  example, 
while  yet  it  supposes  them  to  be  in  perfect  health. 

This  subject  may  possibly  be  better  understood  when 
viewed  in  the  light  of  an  apt  illustration.  Suppose  then 
that  God  made  man  with  a  taste  for  wholesome  food,  and 
a  dislike  to  poison.  Now  the  phenomenon  to  be  account- 
ed for  is,  that  all  the  human  racp  have  preferred  deadly 
poison  to  wholesome  food.  To  solve  this  problem,  you 
say  that  the  first  man  perversely  ate  of  the  poison,  and 
thereby  vitiated  his  taste.  From  thenceforth  he  ate  poison 
only,  and  rejected  food.  His  offspring,  though  born,  as 
their  parent  was  created,  with  an  appetite  for  food  and  an 
antipathy  to  poison,  witnessing  continually  the  example  of 
their  father,  and  not  being  properly  informed  how  the 
poison  may  be  expelled  by  antidotes,  or  how  a  vitiated 
taste  may  be  rectified,*  copied  the  bad  example  which  they 

*  In  allusion  to  that  kind  of  instruction  of  which  mankind  stand  in 
need,  and  which  God  has  given  us  by  revelation,  which  is  "  the 
gospel  of  our  salvation." 


272  THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND. 

witnessed,  vitiated  their  taste,  and,  from  that  time,  seve- 
rally rejected  their  proper  nourishment  and  ate  only  poison. 
You  think  you  have  perl'cctly  accounted  tor  the  phenome- 
non. But  review  the  whole  allair,  and  you  will  perceive 
that  you  have  left  the  grand  ditliculty  as  you  found  it,  viz., 
how  a  whole  race  of  beings  were  led  to  act  contrary  to  the 
law  of  their  nature,  to  overcome  tlie  bias  of  an  unvitiated 
taste,  to  resist  their  appetite  for  food,  and  their  antipathy 
to  poison?  How  is  it  that  not  one  of  them  has  pre- 
served his  taste  unvitiated,  and  overcome  the  influence 
of  a  bad  example,  to  which  their  very  constitution  was 
repugnant  ? 

The  scriptural  method  is  the  only  one  in  which  we  can 
account  for  this  melancholy  fact,  the  universal  wicked, 
ness  of  mankind. 

1.  According  to  the  sacred  writers,  the  external  wick- 
edness of  human  conduct  flows  from  an  'ntornal  depravity 
of  heart.  They  inform  us  that  '•  the  heart  is  deceitful 
above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked,"  J(!r.  xvii,  9  : 
that  "  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  is 
only  evil  continually,"  Gen.  vi,  5  :  that  "  the  heart  of  the 
sons  of  men  is  full  of  evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  heart 
while  they  live,"  Eccles.  ix,  3  :  that  "  out  of  the  heart, 
proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  fornications, 
thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies,"  Matt,  xv,  19:  that 
as  "  a  good  tree  bringeth  not  forth  corrupt  fruit, — an  evil 
man,  out  of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart,  bringeth  forth 
that  which  is  evil :"  that  "  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart 
the  mouth  speaketh,"  Luke  vi.  43,  4")  :  and  that  it  is  "  an 
evil  heart  of  unbelief"  which  causes  them  to  '*  depart 
from  the  living  God,"  Heb.  iii.  12. 

Thus  far  Mr.  G.  goes  with  us  hand  in  hand.  At  least, 
till  he  vindicate  himself  against  the  charjie.  we  may  ven- 
ture to  accuse  him  of  consistency.  "  The  word  devil," 
he  says,  "seems  in  general  acceptation  to  signity  nothing 
more  than  that  propensity  to  ill  observable  in  the  iuunan 
mind."  (Vol.  i,  p.  7(5.)  Mr.  G.  will  imdoubtedly  abide 
by  this  observation,  that  there  is  "  in  the  human  mind" 
a  "  propensity  to  ill." 

2.  This  depravity  of  heart,  however  it  may  be  in- 
creased by  our  voluntary  indidgence  of  it,  is  traced  hack 
to  our  infancy  :  "  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil 


THE    FALIiElV    STATE    OF   MAJfKIND.  273 

from  his  youth,"  Gen.  viii,  21.  "  The  word  we  render 
youth  includes  childhood  and  infancy,  the  earliest  age  of 
man — the  whole  time  from  his  birth."  "  FoolijsJiness  is 
bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child,"  Prov.  xxii,  15.  "  The 
wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb,  they  go  astray  as 
soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies,"  Psa.  Iviii,  3. 

3.  It  is,  therefore,  imputed  to  our  birth  as  a  hereditary 
disorder :  "  Man  that  is  born  of  a  woman  is  of  a  few 
days,  and  full  of  trouble.  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean?  Not  one,"  Job  xiv,  1,  4.  "What  is 
man,  that  he  should  be  clean  ?  and  (he  that  is)  born  of 
a  woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous  ?"  Job  xv,  14. — 
"Man  is  born  hke  a  wild  ass's  colt,"  Job  xi,  12.  "  How 
keenly  is  the  comparison  pointed  !  Like  the  ass,  an  ani- 
mal stupid  even  to  a  proverb :  like  the  ass's  colt,  which 
must  be  still  more  egregiously  stupid  than  its  dam :  like 
the  wild  ass's  colt,  which  is  not  only  blockish,  but  stub- 
born and  refractory  ;  neither  has  valuable  qualities  by 
nature,  nor  will  easily  receive  them  by  discipline.  The 
image  in  the  original  is  yet  more  strongly  touched.  The 
particle  like  is  not  in  the  Hebrew.  Born  a  wild  ass's 
colt ;  or,  as  we  should  say  in  English,  a  mere  wild  ass's 
colt."  (Theron  and  Aspasio,  dia].  13.)  "Behold,  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity  :  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive 
me,"  Psa.  li,  5. 

Hence  our  Lord,  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  a  new 
birth,  says,  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,"  John  iii,  6. — 
The  plain  meaning  of  which  words  is,  that  every  one  born 
of  a  woman  needs  to  be  born  again,  and  to  be  born  of 
the  Spirit  before  he  can  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
and  that  his  being  born  of  the  flesh  is  what  renders  it  ne- 
cessary  that  he  should  be  born  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  com- 
monly  objected  to  this  interpretation,  that  by  flesh  our 
Lord  means  "  infirm  humanity."  He  himself,  however, 
was  a  partaker  of  the  infirmities  of  human  nature.  In 
that  sense  he  was  born  of  the  flesh,  and  was  flesh.  But 
did  he  need  to  be  born  again  of  the  Spirit  ?  If  the  passage 
be  compared  with  other  parts  of  Scripture,  it  will  be  found 
to  mean,  that  which  is  born  of  sinful  human  nature  is  sin- 
ful huilTan  nature,  and  needs  to  be  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  it  may  be  holy.     "  If  to  walk   after  the  flesh,  as 


274        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

opposed  to  walking  after  the  Spirit,  is  to  follow  our  sinful 
inclination*!  ;  if  to  be  in  the  llesh,  opposed  to  being  in  the 
Spirit,  is  to  be  in  a  state  of  sin  ;  if  the  llesh  and  the  Spirit 
are  two  contrary  principles,  which  counteract  each  other  ; 
if  the  works  of  the  llesh,  and  tiie  lusts  of  the  Hesh,  are 
opposed  to  the  Spirit,  and  the  t'niit  of  the  Spirit — then  to 
be  born  of  the  Hesh  (in  opposition  to  being  born  of  the 
Spirit)  must  signify  something  more  than  being  born  of  a 
woman,"  (Wesley  on  Original  Sin,  p.  371,)  and  to  be 
flesh,  (or  carnal,)  in  opposition  to  being  spirit,  (or  spi- 
ritual,)  must  mean  something  more  than  to  partake  of 
infirm  humanity. 

The  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity  is  thus  established 
by  our  being  taught  to  trace  it  to  our  birth  and  concep- 
tion. In  this  way  we  arc  directed  to  a  long,  unbroken 
chain,  the  last  link  of  which  is  one's  self,  and  tlie  first  of 
which  is  Adam.  Of  him  we  are  informed,  as  if  to  in- 
struct us  particularly  in  this  subject,  that  "Adam  lived  a 
hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  begat  a  son  in  his  own 
likeness,  after  his  image,"  Gen.  v,  3.  "  The  image  of 
Adam,  in  which  he  begat  a  son  after  his  fall,  stands  op- 
posed to  the  image  of  God,  in  which  man  was  at  first  cre- 
ated. Moses  had  said,  verse  1,  In  the  day  that  God 
created  man,  in  the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him.  But 
speaking  of  Adam,  as  he  was  long  after  the  fall,  he  does 
not  say  he  begat  a  son  in  the  likeness  of  Gt>d  :  but  he 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image.  Now 
this  must  refer  to  Adam,  either  as  a  man,  or  as  a  good 
man,  or  as  a  mortal,  sinfid  man.  Hut  it  could  not  refer 
to  him  merely  as  a  man.  The  inspired  writer  could  not 
design  to  inform  us  that  Adam  begat  a  man,  not  a  lii>n  or 
a  horse.  It  could  not  woll  rcler  to  him  as  a  good  man. 
For  it  is  not  said,  Adam  begat  a  son,  who  at  length  be- 
came  pious  like  himself;  but  he  begirt  a  son  in  his  own 
likeness.  It  refers  to  him,  tlierefore,  as  a  mortal,  sint'ul 
man  ;  giving  us  to  know  that  the  mortality  and  corrup- 
tion contracted  by  the  fall,  descended  from  Adam  to  his 
son  ;  Adam,  a  sinner,  begat  a  sinner  like  himself".  And  if 
Seth  was  thus  a  sinner  by  nature,  so  is  every  other  descend, 
ant  of  Adam."  {Weslrii  on  Original  Sin,  p.  395.)  This 
subject  will  require!  farther  elucidation. 

'•  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,"  Gen.  i,  '-27.    He 


THE    FALHKN    STATE    OF    MANKlJfD.  275 

made  liim  in  his  natural  image  :  in  the  image  of  his  in- 
tellectual and  self-determined  nature.  As  an  intelligent 
being,  he  made  him  capable,  not  only  of  sensiti^,  but  of 
abstract  knowledge.  He  formed  him  capable  of  knowing 
not  only  visible  but  invisible  things  ;  of  knowing  not  only 
the  properties  of  matter,  but  also  of  mmd  :  of  being  led 
from  efiects  to  their  causes,  and  of  being  taught  to  per- 
ceive their  relations  to  each  other,  and  the  consequences 
of  those  relations.  He  made  him  capable  of  being  directed 
from  the  knowledge  of  himself,  a  visible  effect,  a  crea- 
ture, to  his  invisible  cause,  his  Creator  ;  and,  from  the 
sensible  blessings  which  he  enjoyed,  to  the  bountiful  donor. 
He  made  him  capable  of  being  taught  his  derivation  from 
God,  and  his  dependence  on  him:  of  learning  and  en- 
tering into  the  wise  design  of  his  Creator,  so  as  to 
comprehend  the  purpose  of  his  own  existence.  He  gave 
him  a  capacity  to  understand  the  will  of  his  Maker,  and 
to  perceive  his  obligation  to  do  it.  His  understanding 
was,  therefore,  capable  of  exercising  that  sort  of  judgment 
which  we  call  conscience :  it  could  be  taught  to  dictate 
what  was  right,  and  to  accuse  or  to  excuse  him.  As  God 
is  "  a  God  of  knowledge,  by  whom  actions  are  weighed," 
he  made  man  like  himself,  capable  of  weighing  his  own 
actions.  As  God  made  man  after  the  image  of  his  own 
infinite  understanding,  he  made  him  capable  of  self-deter- 
mination. The  M()st  High  "  doeth  according  to  his  will," 
Dan.  iv,  35.  So  man  was  made  not  a  machine,  but  a 
being  whose  actions  are  his  own,  and  spring  from  his 
choice.  Such  was  the  natural  image  of  God  in  man.  But 
this  natural  image  was  only  the  basis  of  his  moral  image. 
And  this  moral  image  was  knowledge  and  holiness.  (1.) 
It  was  knowledge.  God  endowed  him  with  an  adequate 
measure  of  that  knowledge  of  which  he  made  him  natural- 
ly capable.  As  God  had  made  him  capable  of  corporeal 
sight,  and  gave  him  light  to  make  all  things  visible,  that 
he  might  see ;  so  God,  who  made  him  capable  of  know, 
ledge,  of  spiritual  and  divine  knowledge,  was  himself  a 
light  unto  him  :  and,  as  the  sun  renders  himself  visible  by 
his  own  light,  and  sheds  his  light  on  the  visible  creation, 
so  in  God's  light  did  uian  see  light.  (2.)  He  made  him 
in  the  image  of  his  holiness.  This  knowledge  gave  the 
bias  to  his  will.  His  choice  was,  therefore,  wise  and  right, 


276  THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND. 

and  good.  His  heart  was  fixed  on  God  as  his  portion. 
He  loved  God  supremely  and  with  an  undivided  heart. — 
He  chose  the  will  of  God  as  the  rule  of  his  actions ;  and 
the  glory  and  pleasure  of  God  as  the  end  of  them.  Thus, 
as  God  is  "most  upright,"  he  "made  man  upright."  He 
created  him  according  to  God,  and  planted  in  him  the 
principles  which  led  him  to  imitate  God  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness. 

Over  such  a  being  it  was  reasonable  and  proper  that 
God  should  assume  the  character,  not  only  of  a  gracious 
benefactor,  but  of  a  righteous  governor.  When  man  knew 
his  Maker's  pleasure,  could  discern  between  good  and 
evil,  was  free  to  choose  the  one  or  the  other,  he  was  ca- 
pable of  moral  rectitude  or  oblicjuity,  and  was,  therefore,  a 
proper  subject  of  moral  government.  Able  as-  he  was 
to  appreciate  the  blessings  which  he  enjoyed,  and  to  per- 
ceive  the  hand  which  bestowed  them,  it  was  fit  that  the 
continuance  of  those  blessings  should  only  accon)pany 
his  voluntary  dependence  on  tiie  donor,  and  his  grateful 
acknowledgment  of  the  gifts.  Whatever  favours  might,  in 
the  beginning,  be  bestowed  on  him  gratuitously,  must  not 
be  continued  to  him  capriciously,  but  on  the  principle  of  a 
benign  and  holy  justice,  and,  in  some  sort,  according  to  his 
fitness  to  receive  them,  and  his  fidelity  in  the  use  of  them. 

The  test  to  which  it  pleased  God  to  put  the  obedience 
of  Adam  was  such  as  suited  his  constitution.  The  pro- 
hil)ition  of  the  fruit  of  a  certain  tree,  which  was  in  api)ear- 
ance  "  good  for  food,  and  pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree 
to  be  desired,"  was  a  trial  whether  man  would  live  ac- 
cording to  the  Spirit  or  after  the  llesh  :  ^^hether  he 
would  continue  to  make  choice  of  God  as  his  portion,  or 
turn  from  him  to  a  creature.  The  act  whereliy  our 
parents  tell  was,  theretbre,  a  rejection  of  the  knowledge 
and  enjoyment  of  God,  u  defection  from  their  dependence 
on  him,  and  their  allegiance  to  him,  and  a  consignment 
of  themselves  to  the  government  of  the  llesh.  The  conse- 
quence was,  that  the  appetites  of  the  hotly  became  dis- 
ordered and  irregular  :  their  disordered  appetites  inflamed 
their  mental  passions,  and  the.ir  passions  inllamed  their 
reason.  As  God  was  rejected,  his  inspiration  was  with- 
drawn ;  and,  as  the  devil  was  victorious,  he  took  posses- 
sion of  the  territories  which  he  had  subdued. 


THE    FALL(P>(    STATE    OF    MANKIND.  277 

That  this  was  the  moral  state  to  which  Adam  was 
reduced  by  his  fall ;  and  that  the  state  of  mankind,  till  they 
are  restored  by  Jesus  Christ,  is  precisely  the  s^me,  will 
clearly  appear  from  a  candid  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

1.  Before  his  transgression,  Adam  had  knowledge,  and 
had  it  from  his  creation.  He  was  "  created  in  knowledge." 
When  he  had  sinned  against  God,  and  had  thereby  re- 
jected  and  departed  from  the  source  of  spiritual  and  di. 
vine  light,  his  mind  was  darkened,  and  ignorance  took  the 
place  of  his  preceding  knowledge.  Of  the  gross  igno- 
rance of  God  into  which  he  was  now  fallen,  we  have  a 
most  palpable  proof  in  his  attempt  to  "  hide  himself" 
from  the  divine  omnipresence  and  omniscience  '•  among 
the  trees  of  the  garden,"  Gen.  iii,  8.  Is  then  the  natural 
state  of  all  mankind  similar  to  that  of  Adam  before,  or  after 
his  fall?  This  question  is  easily  answered  from  those 
parts  of  Scripture  which  declare  "  there  is  none  that 
understandeth — God,"  Rom.  i.ii,  11 ;  that  "  the  world  by 
wisdom  knew  not  God,"  1  Cor.  i,  21 ;  that  "  the  Gentiles 
knew  not  God,"  1  Thess.  iv,  5  ;  that  they  "  have  their 
understanding  darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of 
God,  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of 
the  blindness  of  their  hearts,"  Eph.  iv,  18  ;  and  that  to 
"  be  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  Him  that 
created  them,"  it  is  necessary  that  they  should  put  off 
the  old  man  with  his  deeds,  and  put  on  the  new,  where 
Christ  is  all  in  all,"  Col.  iii,  9,  10. 

2.  Before  his  fall  Adam  had  no  irregular  or  inordinate 
appetite.  For  instance:  With  the  exception  only  of  the 
forbidden  fruit,  God  gave  him  leave  to  enjoy  without 
restraint  the  creatures  which  he  had  given  to  him.  "  Of 
every  tree  of  the  garden,  said  the  Lord  God,  thou  mayest 
freely  eat,"  Gen.  ii,  16.  But  from  the  time  of  their  fall, 
the  fruits  of  paradise  were  refused  to  their  now  irregular 
appetite,  which  was  to  be  checked  by  the  use  of  more 
homely  food,  and  the  tax  of  labour  and  sweat.*  Does 
the  present  state  of  mankind  more  resemble  the  state  of 
innocent,  or  of  fallen  Adam  ?  Is  it  now  safe  for  human 
beings  to  be  given  up  to  unrestrained  appetite,  even  in 
things  l?iwful  ?  No  :  "  The  flesh  now  lusteth  against  the 

*  Similar  observations  might  be  made  on  their  other  appetites. 
24 


278        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

Spirit,"  Gal.  v,  17.  "  If,  therefore,  we  live  after  the  flesh 
we  shall  die."  It  is  now  become  necessary  to  "  mortify 
the  deeds  of  the  body  that  we  may  live,"  Rom.  viii,  13. 
"  They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  now  please  God.  For 
they  that  are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  ; 
but  they  that  are  after  the  Spirit,  the  things  of  the 
Spirit.  For  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death  ;  but  to  be 
spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace :  because  the  carnal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be,"  Rom.  viii,  5-8.  The 
"fleshly  lusts  now  war  against  the  soul,"  1  Pet.  ii,  11. 
Tliat  any  man  may  be  spiritual,  he  must  be  born  again 
of  the  Spirit.  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ; 
but  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,"  John  iii,  6. 
Before  a  child  of  Adam  can  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of 
his  mind,  he  has  to  "  put  off"  the  old  man  which  is  cor- 
rupt, according  to  the  deceitful  lusts ;  and  to  put  on  the 
new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and 
true  holiness,"  Eph.  iv,  22-24. 

The  power  which  the  now  irregular  appetites  of 
human  nature  have  to  overbear  our  enfeebled  and  dark- 
ened reason  is  never  more  conspicuous,  than  in  the 
awakened  sinner,  who,  like  Medea,  says.  Video  mcliora 
proboque ;  deteriora  sequor.  Such  is  the  awakened  Jew 
described  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  whose  language  is,  "  We 
know  that  the  law  is  spiritual ;  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  un- 
der sin.  For  tiiat  which  I  do  I  allow  not :  for  what  I 
Mould,  that  do  I  not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I.  Now, 
then,  it  is  no  more  I  tliat  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwolleth  in 
me.  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth 
no  good  thing  ;  for  to  will  is  jirosent  with  me.  but  how  to 
perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not.  For  the  good  that 
I  would,  I  do  not ;  hut  the  evd  which  I  would  not,  that  I 
do.  I  find  then  a  law,  tliat  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is 
present  with  me.  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after 
the  inward  man.  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members, 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into 
captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  whicli  is  in  my  menibors," 
Rom.  vi'i,  14-23. 

Mr.  (J.  has  given  us  a  very  luminous  view  of  this  sub- 
ject, "Let  us  for  one  moment  reflect  what  man  is. 
He  is  a  being  composed  of  body  and  mind.     His  mind 


THE    FALj:.EN  STATE    OF   MANKIND.  279' 

consists  of  intellect  and  will.  The  former  comprehends 
reason  and  judgment,  the  latter  containing  passions  and 
affections  of  various  kinds.  The  body  is  p^petually 
exciting  those  passions  of  the  mind  which  are  incon-. 
sistent  with  reason,  and  contrary  to  judgment,  and 
therefore  denominated  sinful."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  241.)  This 
"  bondage  of  corruption"  is  broken  only  by  the  power 
of  Jesus  Christ.  "  There  is  therefore  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh  but  after  the  Spirit.  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of 
life  in  Christ  Jesus  makes  us  free  from  the  law  of  sin 
and  death,"  Rom.  viii,  1,  2.  They,  therefore,  and  only 
"  they  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  its 
aflfections  and  lusts,"  Gal.  v,  24.  "  Ye  are  not  in  the 
flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  he  is  none  of  his,"  Rom.  viii,  9. 

3.  When  Adam  had  thus  preferred  a  creature  to  his 
Creator,  and  embraced  the  gratification  of  an  animal  pas-, 
sion  in  preference  to  the  enjoyment  of  God,  he  lost  the 
blessing  of  communion  with  God,  and  by  the  loss  of  that 
communion  with  God  which,  from  the  moment  that  God 
inspired  him  with  the  breath  of  life,  was  the  life  of  his 
soul,  he  became,  according  to  the  warning  given  to  him, 
spiritually  dead.  Here  again  we  ask,  Is  the  present  state 
of  mankind,  without  Christ,  the  same  in  which  Adam  was 
made,  or  that  into  which  he  fell  ?  Are  mankind  naturally 
in  a  state  of  communion  with  God,  and  spiritually  alive 
from  their  birth  ;  or  are  they  without  God,  and  alienated 
from  the  Ufe  of  God  ?  The  answer  is  at  hand.  We  have 
already  found  that  "  there  is  none  that  understandeth,  there 
is  none  that  seeketh  after — God  ;"  that  "  there  is  no  fear 
of  God  before  their  eyes,"  Rom.  iii,  11,  18:  to  which 
we  may  add  with  St.  Paul,  that  all  mankind,  while  they 
are  "  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,"  who  are  "  without  Christ," 
are  ^^  adeoi,  without  God  in  the  world,"  Eph.  ii.  11,  12  :, 
that  "  having  the  understanding  darkened,"  they  are 
*'  ahenated  from  the  life  of  God,  through  the  ignorance 
that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  their  heart," 
Eph.  iv,  18 :  that  "  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all 
dead,"  2  Cor.  v,  14  :  and  that  to  every  man  now  spiritu- 
ally alive,  it  may  be  said,  "  As  to  those  that  are  alive  from 


280        THE  lALLE.N  STATK  OF  MANKIND. 

the  dead,"  Rom.  vi,  13  ;  "  and  you  who  were  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked  ac- 
cording to  the  course  of  this  world  (like  all  other  men) 
according  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  spi- 
rit that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedience, 
among  whom  also  we  all  had  our  conversation  in  time  past, 
in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh 
and  (the  consequent  desires)  of  the  mind  :  even  when  we 
were  dead  in  sins,  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  hath 
quickened  us  together  with  Christ,  and  hath  raised  us  up 
together,  and  made  us  to  sit  together  in  heavenly  places 
in- Christ  Jesus,"  Eph.  ii,  1-6. 

4.  By  the  conquest  of  Adam,  Satan  obtained  a  power 
over  him  which  before  he  did  not  possess ;  according  to 
that  maxim,  '•  Of  whom  a  man  is  overcome,  of  tlic  same 
is  he  brought  into  bondage,"  2  Pet.  ii,  19.  Before  the 
sin  of  man,  Satan  had  no  access  to  his  mind  or  imagina- 
tion, but  through  his  senses.  Hence  arose  the  necessity 
for  the  deceiver's  making  the  serpent  the  instrument  of 
his  design.  We  read  of  no  such  mean  of  temptation  being 
subsequently  used  till  the  temptation  of  our  Lord,  who  on 
one  occasion  says,  "  The  prince  of  this  world  cometh,  and 
hatii  nothing  in  me,"  John  xiv,  30.  His  only  way  of 
tempting  Jesus  was,  as  in  the  case  of  Eve,  through  his 
senses.  But  not  so  with  mankind,  since  their  first 
parent  was  "  overcome,  and  brought  into  bondage." — 
From  that  time  he  is  "  the  prince  of  this  world."  "  The 
world  now  liveth  in  rw  -oviipu,  the  wicked  one,"  1  John  v, 
19.  As  "  the  prince  of  the  power  of  tlie  air,"  this  "  spirit 
now  worketh  in  the  ciiildren  of  disobedience,  among  whom 
we  all  had  our  conversation  in  time  past,"  Epli.  ii,  2,  3. 
"  He  that  cominitteth  sin  (and  '  all  have  sinned')  is  of  the 
devil  ;  for  the  devil  sinncth  from  the  beginning.  For  this 
|)urpose  the  Son  of  (iod  was  manifested,  that  ho  might 
destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,"  1  John  iii,  ^.  And  his 
gospel  is  sent  •'  to  turn  men  from  darkness  to  light,  and 
from  the  powcM-  of  Satan  unto  (lod,"  Acts  xxvi,  18. 

Thus  while  the  Scrijiliircs  lead  us  up  to  our  first  parents, 
from  wiiom  we  derive  (lur  hereditary  depravity,  they  point 
out  the  precise  similarity  bfMwren  their  state  after  their  fail 
and  the  present  state  of  their  progeny,  and  that  in  every 
particular,   and  in  such  a  manner  as  to   furnish  us   with 


THE    FALLEN   STATE    OF    MANKIND.  281 

additional  proof  that  the  moral  disorder  of  human  nature  is 
to  be  attributed  to  their  fatal  disaster.  We  have  traced 
the  corruption  of  the  stream  up  to  the  fountain,  and  have 
found  the  corruption  of  the  fountain  and  of  the  stream  to 
be  precisely  the  same. 

Secondly.  Of  our  being  legally  involved  in  the  penal 
consequences  of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents. 

It  is  not  intended  here  to  assert  that  the  posterity  of 
Adam  are  accounted  personally  guilty  of  his  personal  sin. 
This  is  impossible.  It  is  not,  however,  impossible  for  a 
parent,  as  the  representative  of  his  progeny,  to  involve 
them  in  the  ruinous  consequences  of  what  must  always 
be  deemed  his  own  fault. 

When  Adam  was  placed  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  "  the 
Lord  God  commanded  him,  saying,  Of  every  tree  of  the 
garden  thou  raayest  freely  eat,  but  of  the  tree  of  the  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the 
day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  dying,  thou  shalt  die,"  Gen. 
ii,  16,  17.  The  threatening  by  which  God  thus  enforced 
this  command  included  not  only  the  death  of  the  body, 
but  that  of  the  soul  :  a  death  every  way  opposed  to  the 
lives  which  were  given  to  him,  when  "  the  Lord  God 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  lives,  and  man  be- 
came a  living  soul,"  Gen.  ii,  7.  To  this  penalty  Adam 
stood  exposed  when  he  ate  of  the  forbidden  fruit.  Had 
the  sentence  been  immediately  executed  in  its  full  extent, 
the  personal  existence  of  all  his  posterity  would  have  been 
absolutely  prevented.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  that  by 
his  crime  the  personal  existence  of  his  progeny  was  for- 
feited, is  unavoidable.  Had  condign  punishment  been 
inflicted  on  him,  they  must  have  perished  in  his  loins  : 
and  thus,  though  they  would  not  have  suflered  the  per- 
sonal punishment  of  his  personal  crime,  their  seminal  sin 
would  have  met  with  a  seminal  punishment.  As  "  Levi 
paid  tithes  in  Abraham,  being  yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father 
when  Melchisedec  met  him,"  so  the  children  of  Adam  sin- 
ned, "  being  yet  in  the  loins  of  their  father,"  and  in  his 
loins  they  would  have  been  destroyed. 

When  God  arraigned  Adam  before  his  bar,   though  he 

convicted  him  of  sin,  he  did  not  pronounce  on  him  this 

sentence,  but  granted  to  him  a  gracious  reprieve.     The 

first  judicial  sentence  which  God  pronounced  was  upon 

24* 


282  THE   FALLEN   STATE    OF    MANKINI>. 

the  tempter  :  "  And  the  Lord  Cod  said  unto  the  serpent. 
Because  thou  hast  done  this,  thou  art  cursed  above  all 
cattle,  and  above  every  beast  of  the  held  :  upon  thy  belly 
shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of  thy 
life.  And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman, 
and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed  :  he  shall  bruise  thy 
head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,"  Gen.  iii,  14,  15. — 
This  sentence  was,  for  Adam,  a  gracious  sentence.  It 
was  not,  however,  a  sentence  of  acquittal,  but  a  reprieve. 
It  did  not  absolve  him,  as  the  sequel  shows  ;  though  it 
did  hold  out  to  him  the  prospect  of  beholding  the  multiph- 
cation  of  his  species.  It  did  not  place  him  on  the  high 
ground  from  which  he  had  iiillen,  but  promised  him  a 
Deliverer  by  whom  he  may  be  restored. 

Under  this  reprieve  Adam  lived  to  behold  his  progeny. 
But  as  he  was  not  thereby  absolved,  so  neither  were  his 
posterity,  considered    as  his  posterity.     Hereby  neither 
were    they  restored   to  the  possession   and  enjoyment  of 
the  blessings  forfeited  by  him ;  nor  was  the  penal  sanc- 
tion of  the  broken  covenant  annulled.     Considered  mere- 
ly  in  their  relation  to  Adam,  all  mankind  were,  therefore, 
brought  into  condemnation,  and  were  subject  to  the  pe- 
nalty of  death.     Whatever  they  became  by  grace,   they 
were,  "  by  nature,  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others," 
Eph.  ii,  3.     The  sense  of  this  passage  may  be  disputed, 
but  it  cannot  he  overturned.     1.  "The   phrase,  children 
of  wrath,  is  a  Hebraism,   and  denotes  persons  worthy  of 
or  liable  to  wrath.     2.  The  word  (pvcei,  by  nature,  cannot 
n)ean  custom  or  habit,  for  it  never  has  that  sense  when  it 
stands  alone,  without  any  qualifying  epithet.      3.  It  means 
by  birth.     This  is  the  sense  in  which  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  use  it  :  '  We  who  are  ipvaci  im'iaioi,  Jews 
by  nature:   that  is,  Jews  by  birth,'  Gal.  ii.  In."     4.  This 
aiVirmation    the   apostle   makes  concerning    himselt",    the 
Kphesians,  and  others.     Hence  those  plain  and  repeated 
declarations  of  St.  Saul,  '•  By  one  man  -sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  |)assc4l   upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.     (For  until  the  law  sin 
was  in  the  world  :  but  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is 
no  law.     Nevertheless,  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Mo- 
ses, even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  al'ter  tlie  simili- 
Mide  of  Adam's  transgression,  who   is  the  figure  of  him 


THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF   MANKIND.  283 

that  was  to  come.)  Through  the  oflfence  of  one,  many 
are  dead  ;  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation. 
By  one  man's  offence,  death  reigned  by  oneT  By  the 
offence  of  one,  or,  rather,  Si'  evoc  TrapanTOfiarog,  by  one 
offence  (judgment  came)  upon  all  men  to  condemnation. 
By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners." 
Rom.  V,  12,  19. 

In  this  important  passage,  Adam  is  spoken  of  as  tvtzoc, 
a  type  or  figure  of  him  that  should  come,  viz.,  of  Jesus 
Christ.  In  what  sense  he  is  a  type  is  obvious  from  the  whole 
passage,  in  which  the  writer  runs  a  parallel  between  the  type 
and  the  antitype,  and  shows  that,  like  Jesus  Christ,  he  is 
a  representative  of  all  mankind.  Hence  .Jesus  Christ  is 
termed  "  the  last  Adam,"  1  Cor.  xv,  45.  This  "  first 
man,  Adam,"  is  the  "  one  man"  here  repeatedly  mentioned. 
By  him,  (not  by  the  devil,  not  by  Eve  ;  for  they  were 
not  common  representatives,)  sin  and  death,  "  the  wages 
of  sin,"  entered.  By  his  one  sin  (for  only  till  the  com- 
mission of  that  was  he  a  representative)  all  were  consti- 
tuted sinners, — judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condem- 
nation,— and  death  reigned  over  all.  This  the  apostle 
proves  by  an  appeal  to  an  incontrovertible  fact, — the  death 
of  those  (infants)  who  have  not  (personally)  sinned  after 
the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  and  who,  there- 
fore, have  not  personally  incurred  the  penalty  of  sin. — 
Thus  the  doctrine  on  which  we  insist  is  positively  asserted 
in  its  full  extent  by  apostolical  authority,  and  proved  by 
an  unanswerable  argument.  Dr.  Priestley  himself  ac- 
knowledges that  "  if  this  passage  be  interpreted  literally, 
it  will  imply  that  all  are  involved  in  his  (Adam's)  guilt, 
as  well  as  in  his  sufferings."  (Hist,  of  Cor.  vol.  i,  p.  286.) 

To  this  interpretation  it  is  objected  that,  "  by  all  men 
being  constituted  sinners,"  and  by  the  "judgment  which 
came  on  all  men  to  condemnation,  nothing  is  meant  but 
their  being  liable  to  the  death  of  the  body." 

Let  the  passage  be  considered  in  its  own  light,  and  it 
will  appear  that  the  apostle  speaks  of  another  death  than 
that  of  the  body,  viz.,  eternal  death. 

1.  The  death  which  is  the  consequence  of  sin  is  the 
subjert  of  the  apostle's  observations.  This  needs  no 
other  proof  than  what  arises  from  a  perusal  of  verses  12» 
17,21. 


284        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

2.  The  death  which  came  by  sin  must  be  eternal  death, 
because  the  apostle  contrasts  it  with  eternal  life :  "  As  sin 
hath  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  unto 
eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  v,  21.  So,  in  another 
place  :  "  The  wages  of  sin  is  deatli,  but  the  gift  of  God 
is  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Clirist,  our  Lord,"  Rom.  vi, 
23.  As  no  medium  can  be  found  between  life  and  death, 
the  death  incurred  by  sin  could  not  make  eternal  life  ne- 
cessary,  unless  that  death  were  otherwise  eternal.  If 
mankind  are  not  exposed  to  eternal  death,  they  have  al- 
ready  eternal  life,  and  God  needed  not  to  give  it  by  Jesus 
Christ ;  for  this  would  be  to  give  only  what  they  already 
possess.  In  other  words  :  if  eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God 
by  Jesus  Christ,  then  eternal  life  was  forfeited  :  which 
is  the  same  as  to  say  that  the  penalty  of  eternal  death 
was  incurred. 

3.  According  to  the  apostle,  corporeal  "death  reigned 
from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  (infants)  them  that  had 
not  (personally)  sinned  after  tlie  similitude  of  Adam's 
transgression,"  Rom.  v,  14.  How,  then,  could  be  say 
that,  "as  by  the  olfence  of  one  (judgment  came)  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
one  (the  free  gift  came)  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life  ?"  Rom.  v,  18.  For  if  the  only  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion is  that  of  bodily  death,  how  does  justification  of  life 
come  upon  those  who  sutler  by  that  sentence,  and  thereby 
suffer  the  whole  penalty  to  which  they  are  exposed  ? 

4.  If  it  be  said,  "  Rut  infants  who  have  suffered  the 
penal  sentence  of  corporeal  death,  are  subsequently  raised 
to  life  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  tliat  sense"  ju.stification  of 
life  "  may  be  said  to  come  on  them  also  :"  we  answer, 
(1.)  It  is  an  odd  sentence  of  justification  which  is  pro- 
nounced after  the  supposed  penalty  has  been  l)orne.  Is 
not  this  at  once  to  remit  and  to  inllict  the  penalty  ?  Is  it 
not  like  forgiving  a  debt  after  the  debtor  has  paid  it  ? — 
(2.)  After  suffering  this  sentence  of  the  death  of  the  body, 
either  they  would,  without  Christ,  have  eternal  life,  or 
they  would  not.  If  they  would,  then  eternal  life  is  not  the 
gift  of  God  through  Je.sus  Christ.  If  they  would  not, 
then  the  gift  of  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ,  saves  them 
from  eternal  death,  which  otherwise  would  have  been  the 
consequence.      (3.)    The   objector  may   take   that  side 


THE    FAHEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND.  285 

which  he  thinks  most  nearly  alUed  to  truth.  Let  him  be 
a  materaUst.  He  then  supposes  that  the  death  of  the 
body  is  the  death  of  the  whole  man.  According  to  this 
hypothesis,  immortal  life  depends  entirely  on  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body.  He,  therefore,  who  raises  the  body, 
saves  the  man  from  eternal  death,  by  giving  him  eternal 
life  :  and  he  that  is  dead,  unless  his  body  be  raised,  is 
eternally  dead.  On  the  other  hand,  let  the  objector  en- 
tertain  a  contrary  opinion — let  him  suppose  that  man 
has  a  spirit  which  is  naturally  immortal.  Eternal  life  must 
then  be  distinguished  from  eternal  existence  ;  because  it 
is  supposed  to  be  a  gift  to  a  being  to  whom  an  eternal 
existence  is  natural.  It  must  stand  opposed,  not  to  anni- 
hilation, but  to  "  eternal  punishment."  This  is  obviously 
the  sense  in  which  the  Scriptures  use  the  term  :  "  These 
shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment  :  but  the  right- 
eous into  life  eternal,"  Matt,  xxv,  46.  Eternal  life,  in 
the  scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  is  eternal  blessedness. — 
"  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,"  &c.,  Matt,  xxv,  34.  If 
Jesus  Christ  justifies  all  the  infant  offspring  of  Adam,  and 
gives  them  eternal  blessedness,  he  saves  them  from  its 
opposite,  eternal  misery  :  an  eternal  misery  which  is  the 
inevitable  consequence  of  the  eternal  existence  and 
banishment  from  God  of  a  spirit  made  to  be  blessed,  and 
necessarily  desirous  of  happiness.  But  if,  by  justifying 
them,  and  giving  them  eternal  life,  he  saves  them  from 
eternal  misery,  it  is  obvious  that  eternal  misery  would 
have  been  their  portion,  unless  they  had  thus  been  justi- 
fied and  saved. 

Having  shown  that  the  whole  human  race  were  in- 
volved with  their  parent  in  the  immediate  legal  conse- 
quence of  his  fall,  we  now  explore  the  new  condition  in 
which  our  first  parents  and  their  posterity  were  subse- 
quently placed. 

1.  "And  the  Lord  God  said  unto  the  woman,  I  will 
greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow  and  thy  conception  ;  in  sorrow 
thou  shalt  bring  forth  children  ;  and  thy  desire  shall  be  to 
thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee,"  Gen.  iii,  6. — 
Here  we  see  that,  because  the  woman  had  unlawfully  gra- 
tified her  desire  without  consulting  her  husband,  who,  if 
he  had'  been  consulted,  might  probably  have  been  the 
mean  of  saving  her   from  sinning,  her  desire  was  sub- 


286        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

jected  to  his  rule  ;  and  sorrow  was  entailed  upon  her 
as  a  consequence  of  the  gratification  of  her  desire.  But 
as  the  former  is  a  grant  that  she  and  her  husband  should 
istill  live  together,  her  sorrow  was  connected  with  the 
production  of  her  seed,  the  predicted  Deliverer.  It  will 
not  be  denied  that  the  present  state  of  married,  and  child- 
bearing  women,  agrees  precisely  with  the  tenor  of  this 
sentence  pronounced  on  Eve. 

2.  "  And  unto  Adam  he  said,  Because  thou  hast  hear- 
kened unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten  of  the 
tree  of  which  I  commanded  thee,  saying,  Thou  shalt  not 
cat  of  it ;  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake :  in  sorrow 
shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life.  Thorns  also 
and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee  ;  and  thou  shalt 
cat  of  the  herb  of  the  field.  In  the  sweat  of  thy  face 
shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the  ground ;  for 
dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return,"  Gen.  iii, 
17,  19.  In  this  sentence  a  curse  is  pronounced  on  the 
ground  ;  but  not  immediately  on  the  man.  Adam  is,  in- 
deed, warned  of  his  mortality,  already  induced  by  his  sin, 
and  his  death  is  predicted  ;  but  in  a  manner  which  clearly 
indicates  that  he  should  bo  mercifully  spared,  and  that,  at 
the  expense  of  labour,  the  ground,  thougli  under  a  curse, 
should  afford  him  sustenance.  This  labour  is  entailed 
l)articularly  on  the  man,  who.  because  he  chose  to  cleave 
to  tlie  woman,  must  now  support  her.  Because  he  made 
himself  the  slave  of  her  wishes,  he  must  now  be  the  ser- 
vant of  her  wants. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  ground  on  which  we  live 
is  still  cursed:  that  mankind  eat  of  its  fruits  in  sorrow,  all 
the  daya  of  their  life :  that  it  still  spontaneously  produces 
thorns  and  thistles :  or  that  mankind  earn  their  bread  in 
the  sweat  of  their  face. 

It  cannot  bo  denied  that  all  mankincl  are  now  mortal, 
or  that  they  return  unto  tlie  dust  from  whence  they  were 
taken. 

Dangers  stand  tliick  through  all  the  ground, 

To  push  us  to  ihe  tomb ; 
And  fierce  diseases  wait  around 

To  hurry  mortals  home. 

Some  men  niav  impute  this  to  our  personal  transgressions. 
The  original  cause,  however,  is  that  •*  by  one  man  sin 


THE    FALIEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND.  287 

entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin ;  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  This  is 
abundantly  confirmed,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  sufferings 
and  mortaUty  of  infants.  Pain  is  the  chastisement  or 
punishment,  and  death  is  the  wages  of  sin.  But  these 
have  no  personal  crime,  on  account  of  which  they  suffer, 
or  die.  Yet  "  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  (and 
still  reigns)  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  simili- 
tude  of  Adam's  transgression." 

In  all  this  we  find  a  gracious  commutation  of  whole- 
some chastisement  for  destructive  punishment.  A  com- 
mutation founded  on  the  sentence  which  God  first  pro- 
nounced on  the  serpent.  Wholesome  chastisement  this 
certainly  was.  Hard  labour,  though  once  unnecessary, 
was  now  become  wholesome  ;  wholesome  to  the  body,  the 
constitution  of  which  now  needed  it  for  the  preservation 
of  health  ;  and  to  the  mind,  which  now,  not  naturally  in- 
clined to  employ  itself  in  the  contemplation  of  its  Maker, 
needed  some  innocent  occupation  to  prevent  the  farther 
increase  of  sin.  Pain  and  sorrow  were  now  become  as 
necessary  and  as  wholesome  as  labour.  Unmingled  bliss 
might  agree  with  spotless  innocence,  and  was  once  a  suita- 
ble proof  of  the  unqualified  approbation  of  the  Creator. 
But  pain  was  a  necessary  appendage  of  sin,  and  was 
adapted  to  remind  them  of  their  fall,  and  of  their  loss  of 
the  divine  approbation.  When,  before  their  fall,  they 
lived  in  the  actual  enjoyment  of  God,  they  were  thereby 
morally  drawn  toward  him,  and  led  to  make  him  the  su- 
preme object  of  their  choice ;  and  when,  by  their  sin,  they 
were  robbed  of  their  proper  portion,  the  sufferings  and  sor- 
rows of  sin  were  necessary  to  drive  them  to  him.  They 
were,  therefore,  wisely  left  under  the  physical  effects  of 
their  fall,  until  they  should  be  completely  recovered  from 
its  moral  and  judicial  consequences.  And  their  expulsion 
from  paradise,  and  from  the  tree  of  life,  with  all  that  it 
implied,  was  a  proper  and  standing  evidence  of  the  judi- 
cial sentence  which  still  hung  over  them. 

Their  state  was  now  that  of  moral  agents  under  the 
displeasure  of  their  Maker,  but  under  a  gracious  dispen- 
sation  by  which  they  might  be  restored  :  and  with  this  all 
the  circumstances  of  their  new  situation  were  in  perfect 
accord. 


288  THE    FALLEN    ST.VTK    OF    MANKIND. 

The  external  circumstances  of  mankind  are  now  pre- 
cisely those  of  fallen  Adam.  Tlie  human  race  are  now 
surrounded  with  natural  evil,  and  continually  exposed  to 
sufierings.  "  Man  is  born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly 
upward,"  Job  v,  7.  If  he  enter  at  all  "  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,"  it  must  be  "  through  much  tribulation,"  Acts  xiv, 
22.     It  is  not  necessary  to  recount  here 

The  heart  ache,  and  the  thousand  natural  shocks 
That  flesh  is  heir  to. 

The  heart  knoweth  its  own  bitterness.  This  natural  evil 
is  the  product  of  moral  evil.  Sufiering  is  the  concomi- 
tant  of  sin.  These  sorrows  are  the  consequences  of  a 
breacli  of  former  covenant,  and  arc  as  truly  the  marks  of 
legal  condcmniition,  as  the  sufferings  of  our  first  parents. 
They  are  intended  to  corroborate  the  divine  testimony 
concerning  the  moral  and  relative  staie  of  mankind, 
to  make  us  conscious  of  our  real  situation,  and  to  prepare 
us  to  receive  the  Deliverer  from  sin  and  sorrow  ;  and 
they  will  continue  till,  when  we  are  completely  saved  from 
sin, 

Our  mourning  is  all  at  an  end  : 

when  these  "  that  have  come  through  much  tribulation, 
shall  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb."  In  the  meantime,  while  they 
answer  these  important  ends,  "  it  is  good  for  us  to  have 
been  afflicted." 

The  more  closely  we  examine  the  present  condition  of 
human  nature,  the  more  we  shall  bo  convinced  that  it  is 
precisely  that  into  which  our  first  parents  were  i)rought  by 
their  fall,  and  by  tiie  new  covenant  which  was  then  made 
with  tliem  through  the  seed  of  tlie  woman.  We  have  the 
same  marks  of  our  lo.ss  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
of  innocence,  the  same  indications  of  the  judicial  sentence 
which  Jiangs  over  us  ;  and  we,  like  them,  arc  under  a  new 
covenant  by  which  provision  is  made  for  our  recovery. 

1.  Nothing  can  less  need  to  be  proved  tiian  that  Adam 
by  his  sin  forfeited  his  paradise,  and  the  ease  and  enjoy- 
ments t(»  which  it  contributed.  "The  Lord  God  sent 
him  forth  Iron)  the  garden  of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  from 
whence  he  was  taken.     So  he  drove  out  the  man ;  and 


THE    FALI»KN    STATK    OF    MANKIND.  289 

he  placed  at  the  east  of  the  garden  of  Eden,  cherubim, 
and  a  flaming  sword,"  Gen.  iii,  23,  24.  If  Adam  had  not 
sinned,  he  and  his  posterity  would  undoubtedly  have  con- 
tinued to  inhabit  the  garden  of  Eden  ;  but  since  his  fall 
no  individual  of  the  human  race  has  been  admitted.  The 
case,  then,  is  perfectly  plain,  that  his  posterity  have  lost 
it  by  his  sin. 

2.  Our  first  parent  forfeited  the  tree  of  life,  and  its 
immortalizing  fruit,  together  with  his  paradise.  "  And 
now,"  saith  the  Lord  God,  "  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand, 
and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  for  ever  ; 
therefore  the  Lord  God  sent  him  forth  from  the  garden  of 
Eden,  and  placed  cherubim  and  a  flaming  sword  which 
turned  every  way.  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life," 
Gen.  iii,  22,  24.  When  Adam  was  placed  in  the  garden 
of  Eden,  he  had  leave  to  "eat  freely  of  every  tree  of  the 
garden,"  of  which  the  tree  of  life  was  one,  with  the  ex- 
ception  on/y  of  "  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil," 
Gen.  ii,  16,  17.  But  who  will  say  that  the  posterity  of 
Adam  are  at  liberty  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life  ? 

3,  Whatever  were  the  benefits  of  which  a  paradise, 
and  the  tree  of  life,  were  the  symbols  and  pledges,  they 
were  forfeited  with  them.  The  sin  of  Adam  separated 
between  God  and  him.  He  was  therefore  robbed,  as  we 
have  seen,  of  the  gracious  presence  of  God.  He  for- 
feited the  divine  light,  and  sunk  into  spiritual  dark, 
ness.  He  forfeited  the  divine  assistance,  and  sunk  into 
spiritual  debility.  He  forfeited  the  divine  favour  and  ap. 
probation,  and  the  proofs  of  that  favour  and  approbation  ; 
and  was  therefore  afraid,  and  hid  himself  from  that  God 
in  whose  presence  he  had  otherwise  rejoiced.  He  for- 
feited that  communion  with  God,  and  that  enjoyment  of 
him,  which  were  the  life  of  his  life  ;  and  became  wretched 
and  forlorn.  All  these  we  have  already  found  to  be  the 
consequences  of  his  fall,  with  respect  to  his  posterity  :  of 
whom  none  has  God  with  him  or  in  him,  none  is  enlight- 
ened or  accepted,  none  beholds  the  love  of  God  toward 
him,  or  enjoys  fellowship  with  God,  but  in  and  through 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant.  These 
are  undeniable  facts.  Here  is  a  race  of  beings,  by  their 
very  constitution  capable  of  God,  whose  first  parent  had 
God  for  his  portion,  and  forfeited  that  desirable  treasure 

25 


290        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

by  preferring  a  creature  before  his  Creator,  and  who  now 
do  not  inherit  from  him  his  primeval  portion.  Why  are 
they  robbed  of  it,  but  because  it  was  forfeited  by  their 
head  and  representative,  whose  sin  has  placed  some  obsta- 
cle in  the  way  of  their  enjoyment  of  it  ? 

It  remains  only  to  add  that  mankind  are  now,  like  their 
first  parents,  under  a  gracious  covenant  which  supposes 
their  fallen  condition  ;  which  is  adapted  to  their  condition 
as  fallen  ;  which  is  designed  for  their  restoration  ;  and 
to  which  it  is  to  be  attributed  that  any  of  the  human  race 
are  enlightened,  accepted,  renewed,  or  saved. 

The  seed  of  the  woman,  who,  in  behalf  of  Adam,  was 
appointed  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  is  manifested  in 
behalf  of  mankind,  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.  He. 
therefore,  who  was  the  Saviour  of  Adan»  is  the  Saviour 
of  all  men,  and  "  there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven, 
given  among  men  whereby  we  can  be  saved." 

1.  He  came  into  the  world  on  the  supposition  that  we 
were  fallen.  "  The  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that 
which  was  lost,"  Matt,  xviii,  11.  "  This  is  a  faithful  say- 
ing,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  that  Jesus  Christ  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners,"  1  Tim.  i,  15.  "  When 
we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us."  He  "died  tor 
the  ungodly,"  Rom.  v,  0,  8.  "  He  died  the  just  for  the 
unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,"  1  Pet.  iii,  18. 
But  he,  '•  by  the  grace  of  God,  tasted  death  for  every 
man,"  Heb.  ii,  9.  Therefore  all  men  were  sinners,  un- 
godly, and  unjust. 

2.'  The  method  of  our  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ  is 
adapted  to  »is  as  fallen  creatures.  Jesus  Christ  is  "  the 
light  of  the  world,"  because,  without  him,  the  whole  world 
is  "  full  of  darkness  and  cruel  habitations."  He  became 
a  "  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,"  1  John  ii, 
2,  because  "judgment  had  come  uponlill  men  to  condem- 
nation," "every  mouth  was  stopped,  and  all  the  world 
was  become  guilty  before  God,"  Rom.  iii,  19.  He 
required  that  all  men  should  be  regenerated,  because  all 
men  are  deeply  degenerated  ;  and  he  testified,  "  Except 
a  man  he  born  of  water  imd  of  ihe  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdiMu  of  (Jod."  John  iii,  5,  because  "that  which  is 
born  oftlie  flesh  is  lleHli.  (is  carnal.)  and  that  only  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,"  (is  spiritual.)     His  apostle 


THE    FALIEN  STATE    OF    MANKIND.  291 

insisted  that  "  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  avail, 
eth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  hut  a  new  creature," 
Gai.  vi,  15;  because  "  the  old  man  is  corrupt  according 
to  the  deceitful  lusts,  and  the  new  man  only  is  created 
after  God  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness,"  Eph.  iv, 
22,  24.  And  God  has  "laid  help  upon  one  who  is  mighty," 
because  "  without  him  we  can  do  nothing." 

3.  The  terms  of  the  new  covenant  are  such  as  are  adapted 
for  our  restoration,  and  therefore  imply  our  antecedent  ruin. 
(1.)  The  gospel  says  to  every  one,  "  Except  ye  repent,  ye 
shall  all  likewise  perish."  Now  repentance  is  required  as 
a  means  of  raising  the  fallen.  Jesus  Christ  "  came  not  to 
call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance  ;  for  they  that 
are  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are 
sick."  Repentance,  then,  is  only  the  duty  of  a  sinner; 
and  ivS  intended  in  order  to  his  cure.  But  "  God  command, 
eth  all  men  everywhere  to  repent,"  Acts  xvii,  30  ;  and 
therefore  all  men  everywhere  are  sinners.  The  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  gospel  of  repentance,  and,  therefore,  is 
intended  to  promote  the  cure  of  the  diseased.  (2.)  It  re- 
quires "  faith  in  them  that  hear  it,"  Heb.  iv,  2.  God,  as  of 
old,  has  "sent  his  word  to  heal"  us,  Psa.  cvii,  20.  Jesus 
Christ,  therefore,  required  that  men  should  have  "  faith  to  be 
healed,"  Acts  xiv,  9  ;  for  faith  is  the  mean  by  which  we  de- 
pend  on  the  Physician  of  souls,  receive  his  advice  and  his 
medicines,  and  by  which  we  are  consequently  made  whole. 
(3.)  All  men  are  taught  by  Jesus  Christ  to  pray,  and  to 
pray,  Forgive  us  our  trespasses.  This  implies  that  all  men 
have  committed  trespasses,  and  that  the  gospel  is  intended 
to  direct  all  men  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  (4.)  "  If  any 
man  will  come  after  me,"  said  Jesus  Christ,  "  let  him  deny 
himself,"  Matt,  xvi,  24.  This  implies  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  every  man  which  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  deny  or 
renounce  ;  and  that  the  peculiar  duty  of  a  Christian  is  such 
as  is  adapted  to  save  him  from  his  sinful  self. 

4.  It  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  healing  nature  of  the 
gospel  covenant  that  any  man  is  enlightened,  accepted, 
renewed,  delivered,  quickened,  or  finally  redeemed  and 
saved.  (1.)  The  wisest  of  men  have  once  been  ignorant, 
and  are  supernaturally  illuminated  :  "  Ye  were  sometimes 
darkness,  but  now  are  ye  light  in  the  Lord,"  Eph.  v,  8. 
(2.)  All  the  people  of  God  are  they  whose  iniquities  are 


292  THK    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND. 

forgiven.  They  are  "  accepted  in  the  beloved,  in  whom 
they  have  redemption  througli  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,"  Eph.  i,  6,  7.  "  The  Scripture  hath  concluded  all 
imder  sin,  that  the  promise  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  might 
be  given  to  them  that  believe,"  Gal.  iii,  8.  "  For  God 
hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that  he  might  have 
mercy  upon  all,"  Rom.  xi,  32.  (3.)  All  the  holy  people 
of  God  are  those  who  are  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  their 
mind  :  "  We  ourselves,  also,  were  sometimes  foolish,  dis- 
obedient,  deceived,  serving  divers  lusts  and  pleasures, 
living  in  malice  and  envy,  hateful  and  hating  one  an- 
other. But  after  that  the  kindness  and  love  of  God.  our 
Saviour,  appeared,  not  by  works  of  righteousness  which 
we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,"  Tit.  iii,  3-5.  (4.)  All  the 
free  servants  of  God  arc  liberated  captives  :  "  He  gave  him- 
self for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and 
purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works,"  Titus  ii,  14.  (5.)  The  bodies  of  the  followers 
of  Christ  are  brought  back  from  the  tomb  by  virtue  of 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  their  redeeming  Head  : — 
"  Now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first 
fruits  of  them  that  slept.  For  since  by  man  came  death, 
by  man  also  came  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as 
in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive," 
1  Cor.  XV,  20-22.  (6.)  All  the  spirits  of  just  men,  made 
perfect,  ascribe  their  salvation  to  Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  a 
new  covenant  :  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blond,  and  hath  made  us  kings 
and  priests  unto  (iod  and  his  Fatiier;  to  him  be  glory 
and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen,"  llev.  i,  5,  (». 
"  Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and 
nation,"  Rev.  v,  9.  "  What  are  these  which  are  arrayed 
in  white  robes?  and  whence  came  they?  These  are  they 
which  came  out  of  great  trilndation,  and  have  washed 
their  robes  in  the  blooti  of  the  Lamb,"  Rev.  vii,  13.  14. — 
"And  I  looked,  and  lo,  a  Lamb  stood  on  tlie  mount  Sion, 
and  will)  him  a  hundred  and  fcuty  and  four  tliousand.  hav- 
ing his  I'ather's  name  written  in  their  I'oreheads.     These 


THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF   MANKIND.  293 

were  redeemed  from  among  men,  being  the  first  fruits 
unto  God,  and  to  the  Lamb,"  Rev.  xiv,  1,  4.  In  a 
word :  all  our  blessings  are  the  gifts,  not  of  naiture,  but 
of  grace :  they  are  not  our  paternal  inheritance,  but  a 
"  purchased  possession,"  restored  to  us  by  Him  who  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners  :  "  Of  him  are  we  in  Christ 
Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  right- 
eousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption  :  that  ac- 
cording as  it  is  written.  He  that  glorieth,  let  him  glory 
in  the  Lord"  Jesus  Christ,  1  Cor.  i,  30,  31. 

It  may  possibly  be  urged  that  there  are  exceptions : 
that  Jeremiah  was  "  sanctified  before  he  came  forth  out  of 
the  womb,"  Jer.  i,  5,  and  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
"  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from  his  mother's 
womb,"  Luke  i,  15.  If  these  were  really  exceptions  they 
would  only  confirm  the  general  rule :  for,  admitting  that 
the  purification  of  their  souls  from  their  birth  is  what 
is  meant,  this  does  not  contradict  the  general  statement. 
(1.)  These  expressions  do  not  imply  that  the  purity  of 
Jeremiah  and  John  was  the  result  of  their  natural  consti- 
tution, but  rather  that  it  was  the  gift  of  redeeming  grace. 
(2.)  If  all  mankind  were  sanctified  from  their  birth,  there 
would  be  no  room  for  marking  these  as  extraordinary  cases. 

In  attending  to  the  objections  which  the  Socinians 
generally  urge  against  these  scriptural  truths,  it  is  reason- 
able to  inquire  whether  Mr.  G.  do  not  first  demand  our 
attention.  Although  he  has  not  entered  thoroughly 
into  the  subject,  he  has  given  us  a  fair  specimen  of 
the  manner  in  which  he  would  oppose  it.  His  objec- 
tions are  taken  entirely  from  Scripture,  and  are  undoubt- 
edly  some  of  the  strongest  which  he  has  to  produce.  If 
we  can  fairly  answer  them,  we  may  justly  presume  that 
whatever  others  he  may  have  in  store  are  equally  answer- 
able. We  will  not  conjecture  the  cause  of  his  giving  us 
the  texts  without  any  comment ;  but  will  briefly  subjoin 
to  each  of  them  what  we  deem  an  appropriate  and 
satisfactory  answer. 

"  For  thy  pleasure  thev  are  and  were  created,"  Rev.  iv, 
11.  (Vol.  li,  p.  122.)  Undoubtedly.  But  Mr.  G.  will  not 
aflirm  that  all  God's  creatures  have  answered  the  end  for 
which  tney  were  created.  Some  of  them  have  proved  ex.. 
tremely  wicked.  Has  God,  then,  "  anv  pleasure  in  wicked-. 
25* 


294  THE    FALLEN  STATE    OF    JIANKIND. 

ness  ?  If  Mr.  G.  mean  to  insinuate  that  the  degeneracy  of 
mankind  cannot  give  God  pleasure,  we  answer,  Certainly 
it  cannot.  But  the  passage  which  he  has  quoted  speaks  of 
their  creation.  He  must  remcinl)cr  that  all  which  God  cre- 
ated and  made,  was  "  created  in  six  days,"  alter  which 
God  "  rested  from  his  works.''  Now  God  did  not  create  any 
thing  sinful,  as  Mr.  G.  will  inform  us  by  his  next  quotation. 

"  And  God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had  made,  and  be- 
hold it  was  very  good,"  Genesis  i,  31.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  123.) 
Equally  true!  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  their  sub- 
sequent state?  Adam  and  Eve  were  very  good  when 
God  made  them,  and  when  he  approved  the  work  of  his 
hands ;  but  were  they  very  good  when  they  ate  of  the 
forbidden  fruit?  And  are  all  their  posterity  very  good 
until  now? 

"  He  giveth  to  all  life,  and  breath,  and  all  things," 
Acts  xvii,  25.  How  does  this  passage  prove  that  none 
of  God's  gifts  are  legally  forfeited  .'  or  that  the  gifts 
which  we  enjoy  arc  not  given  according  to  the  law  of 
redeeming  grace  ?  "  Eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God"  to 
sinners  ;  but  it  is  given  "  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord," 
and  Redeemer. 

"  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matt,  xix,  14,  (kc.  Who  was 
it  that  spake  these  words  ?  Was  it  not  the  Saviour  of 
sinners  ?  How  then  does  this  passage  prove  that  little 
children  have  no  need  of  the  Saviour  of  sinners  ?  Jesus 
Christ  saves  them,  and  therefore  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Can  this  prove  that  they  have  no  need  of 
being  saved  ?     But  wait  a  moment. 

"  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whosevcr  rcceivcth  not  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  a  littlo  child,  shall  in  nowise  enter 
therein,"  Mark  x,  15.  The  true  meaning  of  this  passage 
appears  to  be,  that  no  person  can  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,  but  in  that  spirit  of  docility  which  a  little  child 
ordinarily  manifests  in  its  general  conduct.  ^Vhether 
these  little  children,  without  Christ,  be  lost,  the  reader 
will  inmiediately  understand. 

"  For  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  lace  of  mv  Fa- 
ther which  is  in  heaven."  To  these  words  Jesus  Christ 
adds,  "For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that  which 
was  lost,"  Matt,  xviii,  lU.     Hence  it  appears  that  these 


THE    FALHEN    STATE    OF    MA^■KI^'D.  295 

♦«  little  ones"    were   lost,   but   that    Jesus  Christ   saves 
them. 

"  God  is  love."  We  have  found  it  useful  to  tjwn  to  the 
passage  which  Mr.  G.  cites,  and  to  read  a  little  farther, 
and  will,  therefore,  again  make  the  same  experiment. — 
We  turn  to  this  passage,  (1  John  iv,  8,  &c.,)  and  read, 
"  God  is  love.  In  this  was  manifested  the  love  of  God 
toward  us,  because  that  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Son 
into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  through  him.  Herein 
is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and 
sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  Mr.  G. 
did  not  intend  that  we  should  pry  so  narrowly  into  every 
thing.  Here,  however,  is  St.  John's  own  explanation  of 
his  own  words,  "  God  is  love."  According  to  this  expla- 
nation, how  does  it  appear  from  this  passage  that  we  did 
love  God  ;  that  we  had  no  sins  for  which  a  propitiation 
was  necessary ;  or  that  we  should  all  have  lived  without 
the  coming  of  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world  ? 

"  His  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works,"  Psalm 
cxlv,  9.  Most  certainly  !  But  how  is  this  to  prove  that 
all  mankind  have  not  need  of  his  tender  mercies? 

What  remain  are  totally  irrelevant.  At  least  they 
may  stand  without  any  reply.  They  are  such  as  these : 
"  Not  a  sparrow  falleth  to  the  ground  without  your 
Father."  "  His  compassions  fail  not."  "He  will  not 
always  chide."  "His  mercy  endureth  for  ever."  (Vol. 
ii,  pp.  123,  124.)  All  full  of  consolation  for  the  faithful, 
but  nothing  to  the  point  in  hand  ! 

If  Mr.  G.  understand  how  to  quote  Scripture  against 
us,  we  may  expect  but  a  feeble  resistance  from  that  quar- 
ter. It  is  when  a  Socinian  assumes  the  philosopher  that 
he  becomes  formidable  ;  for  then  he  is  at  home.  If  we  are 
worsted  by  meeting  him  on  his  own  ground,  it  is  some 
consolation  that  we  have  a  scriptural  battery,  behind 
which  we  can  retire.  While  we  keep  our  proper  place  of 
retreat  in  our  rear,  we  mav  venture  to  face  the  danger, 
and  to  attend  to  the  philosophical  objections  which  are 
made  to  this  scriptural  doctrine. 

I.  "  It  is  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things  that  man 
should J)e  created  holy.  All  holiness  must  be  the  effect 
of  a  man's  own  choice  and  endeavour.  It  must  be  the 
result  of  a   right  use  of  his   powers.     Adam  could  not 


296  THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND. 

therefore    be    holy  (ill  he   had  tliiis  exerted   his  powers 
aright." 

It  is  very  justly  observed  that  those  who  are  adverse  to 
the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  are  equally  so  to  that 
of  the  original  rectitude  of  our  first  parents.  'J'he  reason 
is  obvious ;  for  the  one  cannot  be  safely  denied,  if  the 
other  be  admitted.  If  Adam  were  created  in  a  state  of 
positive  moral  rectitude,  it  would  rest  with  the  Socinians 
to  prove  that  every  man  is  born  into  the  world  in  a  similar 
state.  This  would  be  too  much  for  even  their  philosophy. 
For  the  same  reason  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  prove  the  pos- 
sibility of  Adam's  original  rectitude. 

1.  The  first  and  best  proof  which  we  give  is  that  taken 
from  the  Scriptures,  which  athrm  that  so  it  was. 

(1.)  Moses  expressly  states  that  "God  said,  Let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image,"  Gen.  i,  26. 

(2.)  When  God  had  finished  all  his  v,orks,  he  pro- 
nounced them  all  to  be  "  very  good,"  Gen.  i,  31. 

(3.)  Solomon  consequently  declares  that  "  God  made 
man  upright,"  Eccles.  vii,  29. 

But  if  the  first  of  these  texts  imply  only  that  man 
was  made  with  reason  and  choice,  (which  is  not  yet 
granted,)  the  second  and  third  must  imply  that  those 
powers  had  a  proper  direction.  To  argue  then  that  the 
thing  is  impossible,  is  to  argue  against  plain  scriptural  facts. 

"That  righteousness  or  holiness  is  tlie  principal  part  of 
this  image  of  God,  appears  from  Eph.  iv,  '^2-24,  and 
Col.  iii,  9,  10.  On  which  it  maybe  observed,  [l.J  By 
the  old  man  is  not  meant  a  hcatlienish  life,  or  an  ungodly 
conversation ;  but  a  corrupt  nature.  For  the  apostle 
elsewhere  speaks  of  our  old  man  as  crucified  with  Ciirist ; 
and  here  distinguishes  from  it  their  former  conversation, 
or  sinful  actions,  which  he  calls  the  deeds  of  the  old  man. 
[2.]  By  the  new  man  is  meant,  not  a^new  course  of  life, 
(as  the  Socinians  interpret  it,)  but  a  principle  of  grace, 
called  by  St.  Peter  tlie  hidden  man  of  the  heart,  and  a 
divine  nature.  [3.]  To  put  off  the  old  man,  (the  same 
as  to  crucify  the  flesh,)  is  to  subdue  and  mortit'y  our  cor- 
rupt  nature  :  to  put  on  the  ne\y  man  is  to  stir  u|)  and  cul- 
tivate that  gracious  princi|)le,  that  new  nature.  This, 
saith  the  apostle,  is  created  after  God,  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness.     It  is  created  :  which  cannot  properly 


THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND.  297 

he  said  of  a  new  course  of  life  ;  but  may  of  a  new  nature. 
It  is  created  after  God,  or  in  his  image  and  hkeness,  men- 
tioned by  Moses.  But  what  is  it  to  be  created  after  God, 
or  in  his  image  ?  It  is  to  be  created  in  righteousness  and 
true  hoUness  :  (termed  knowledge,  the  practical  know- 
ledge of  God,  Col.  iii,  10.)  But  if  to  be  created  after 
God,  or  in  his  image  and  likeness,  is  to  be  created  in  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness,  and  if  that  principle  of  right- 
eousness  and  holiness,  by  which  we  are  '  ci-eated  unto 
good  works,'  is  a  new  man,  a  divine  nature  ;  it  is  easy  to 
infer  that  man  was  at  first  created  righteous  or  holy." — 
(Mr.  S.  Hehden's  Tract  on  Eccles.  vii,  29.) 

2.  This  Socinian  mistake  arises  from  confounding  a 
right  state  of  the  powers  of  the  mind  with  a  right  use  of 
them,  or  with  those  habits  which  are  contracted  only  by 
use.  It  is  readily  granted  that  Adam  could  not  act  aright 
but  by  his  own  choice  and  endeavour,  and  that  he  could 
not  contract  habits  of  holiness  without  a  series  of  right 
actions.  But  the  right  state  of  his  powers  is  another 
thing,  and  was  antecedent  to  his  choice  and  endeavour. 
A  rational  and  free  being  not  only  may,  but  must  begin 
his  existence  with  his  powers  either  in  order,  or  in  disor- 
der,  as  every  living  human  body  must  be  produced  with 
either  a  healthy  or  a  sickly  constitution  ;  for  there  is  no 
medium.  Could  not  God  create  a  human  body  with  eyes 
capable  of  seeing  clearly  and  distinctly  ? — with  senses  to 
which  what  is  useful  would  be  agreeable,  and  what  is 
baneful  would  be  unpleasant,  and  the  result  of  the  first 
exertion  of  which  would  be  a  choice  of  the  good,  and 
a  refusal  of  the  evil  ?  And  why  could  not  God  create  a 
human  being  with  the  powers  of  his  mind  in  such  a  state 
as  immediately  to  view  in  a  proper  light  every  thing  which 
should  come  under  his  notice— to  distinguish  between  the 
Creator  and  his  creatures — to  perceive  immediately  the 
vast  superiority  of  God  to  all  other  things — and  to  have 
a  distaste  to  sin,  and  a  natural  relish  for  piety  ?  And  would 
not  the  result  of  the  first  exertion  of  such  powers  in  such 
a  state  be  a  choice  of  God  for  his  portion,  and  of  the 
divine  will  for  the  law  of  his  being  ? 

The  farther  we  pursue  this  subject  the  more  clearly  we 
perceive  that  so  it  must  have  been.  Suppose  man  to  be 
created  with  his  senses  unfit  for  use,  how  could  he  fit 


298        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

them  for  use  by  using  them,  since  they  could  not  be  used 
until  they  were  tit  for  use  ?  C:in  a  blind  man  obtain 
power  to  see  by  seeing  ?  Ho  cannot  see,  until  he  be 
blessed  with  power  to  see.  Again  :  suppose  (if  it  be  not 
a  contradiction  in  terms)  a  man  created  with  appetites 
which  make  no  distinction  between  pleasant  and  unplea- 
sant, wholesome  and  baneful.  Before  he  can  distinguish 
between  food  and  poison,  he  must  make  the  trial  of  both  ; 
and  as  his  appetite  is  not  antecedently  disposed  to  distin- 
guish,  he  will  not  only  try,  but  eat  both  indifferently.  He 
will  be  poisoned  before  he  can  know  the  difference.  If 
he  make  any  choice  between  them,  it  must  be  merely 
accidental,  for  he  has  no  judgment  to  guide  him.  His 
"  mouth  does  (not)  taste  meat."  He  may  accidentally 
give  the  decided  preference  to  poison,  and  reject  salutary 
food.  Suppose  that  the  poison  do  not  take  immediate 
effect,  and  he  make  repeated  experiments,  whereby  he 
may  contract  habits  of  distinction,  and  a  true  taste  ;  it  is 
as  probable  that,  without  any  fault  of  his,  he  will  contract 
a  false  taste  as  that  he  will  contract  a  just  one.  The 
reader  has  already  learned  to  make  the  application. 

Love  to  God  is  the  essence  of  the  duty  of  a  rational 
creature.  And  why  could  not  man  be  created  in  a  state 
of  mind  and  heart  constitutionally  disposed  to  love  God, 
as  the  human  eye,  when  not  disordered,  finds  it  "  a  plea- 
sant thing  to  behold  the  sun,"  cr  as  the  human  palate  is 
previously  disposed  to  be  gratified  by  wholesome  food  ? 

But  here  is  the  difficulty  !  "  Man  (it  is  said)  could  not 
love  God  before  he  knew  him." 

Verv  true.  But  according  to  St.  Paul's  explanation 
of  the  image  of  CJod,  man  was  created  in  knowledge  as 
well  as  in  love.  He  at  once  knew  and  loved  God,  at  the 
moment  of  his  creation.  Suppose  a  human  being  called 
into  existence,  not  in  midnight  darkness,  but  in  the  light 
of  the  meridian  sun,  with  his  eyes  open  and  perfect.  In 
the  very  moment  of  his  creation  he  beholds  the  sun,  and 
admires  it  above  every  visible  object.  Just  so,  Adam, 
created  with  his  mental  |)owers  in  their  perfect  state,  in 
the  bla/.o  of  Deity,  at  once  knew  God  and  loved  him. 

3.  It  is  very  obvious  that  the  objection  which  we  have 
been  considering  is  founded  in  a  mistaken  notion  of  the 
nature  of  the  things  in  question.     The  idea  of  what  is 


THE    FALLEN    STATE    OF    MANKIND.  299 

possible  is  taken  from  what  generally  is.  Because,  in  the 
present  state  of  things,  mankind  come  into  existence  very 
imperfect,  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  so  it  mu^  always 
have  been.  But  is  not  this  begging  the  question,  by 
supposing  the  original  state  of  human  nature  to  have  been 
the  same  as  the  present  ?  The  present  state  of  things 
is  not,  however,  such  as  to  afford  no  proof  of  the  possi- 
bility of  Adam's  being  created  in  a  state  of  holiness. 

(1.)  The  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  was  produced 
holy.  Hence  the  Angel  Gabriel  said  unto  Mary,  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  :  therefore,  also,  that  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God,"  Luke  i,  35.  Now,  if  it  were  impossible  for  a 
being  to  be  made  constitutionally  holy,  Jesus  Christ  could 
not  have  been  born  a  holy  thing. 

(2.)  When  a  man  is  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind, 
the  disposition  to  holiness  precedes  the  choice  and  practice 
of  holiness.  The  Socinians  grant  that  habits  are  formed 
by  long  continued  practices,  and  that  these  habits  dispose 
a  person  to  prolong  the  practices  out  of  which  the}  arise. 
How  then  can  a  man  who  has  contracted  violent  habits  of 
wickedness,  which  have  become  "  a  second  nature,"  enter 
on  the  practice  of  holiness,  without  a  previous  choice  of 
the  path  of  holiness  ?  and  how  can  he  choose  the  path 
of  holiness  without  a  disposition  to  make  that  choice  ?  The 
bent  of  his  mind  is  directly  contrary  to  such  a  choice  ;  it 
is  a  disposition  to  choose  the  way  of  sin.  Unless  his 
disposition,  therefore,  first  be  changed,  there  will  be  no 
change  in  his  choice,  and  consequently  none  in  his  prac- 
tice. However  the  disposition  may  be  confirmed  by  the 
subsequent  choice  and  practice,  it  must  precede  them. 
Hence  the  sacred  writers  do  not  attribute  the  change  of 
man's  heart  to  a  change  in  his  conduct ;  but  the  change 
in  his  conduct  to  that  of  his  heart.  "  A  good  man  out  of 
the  good  treasure  of  the  heart  bringeth  forth  good  things," 
Matt,  xii,  35.  "  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs 
of  thistles  ?"  Matt,  vii,  16.  "  How  can  ye,  being  evil, 
speak  good  things  ?  for  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart 
the  mouth  speaketh,"  Matt,  xii,  34.  "  Make  the  tree 
good,  atid  the  fruit  will  be  good  also  ;  or  else  make  the 
tree  corrupt,  and  his  fruit  corrupt :  for  the  tree  is  known 


300  TlIK    FALLKN    STATE    OF    MANKIND. 

by  his  fruit,"  Malt,  xii,  33.  And  this  change  of  heart, 
so  necessary  to  a  change  of  conduct,  implies  not  only  a 
change  of  choice,  but  also  a  previous  change  of  disposi- 
tion :  a  change  of  disposition  which,  because  it  must  pre- 
cede a  change  of  choice,  is  primarily  attributed,  not  to 
him  who  is  the  subject  of  it,  but  to  God.  "  We  are  his 
workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works, 
which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in 
them,"  Eph.  li,  9,  10. 

According  to  this  doctrine,  Adam  was  "  created  unto 
good  works,  that  he  might  walk  in  them."  It  is  perhaps 
no  mean  proof  of  this,  that  he  lived  a  life  of  perfect 
holiness  from  the  beginning :  and  sinned  not  till  he  met 
with  an  external  temptation.  The  present  state  of  man- 
kind  we  have  found  to  be  the  reverse  of  this.  They  are 
"transgressors  from  the  womb;"  and  never  turn  from 
their  unrighteousness  till  they  are  solicited  by  grace 
divine. 

II.  "  If  Adam  had  been  created  perfect  he  could  not 
have  fallen.  His  fall  demonstrates  that  he  was  not 
perfect." 

The  fallacy  of  this  argument  lies  in  the  ambiguity  of  the 
term  perfect.     It  may  mean  absolute  perfection,  and  may 
include  immutability.     Taking  the  word  in  this  sense,  the 
proposition  is  a  truism :  it  is  the  same  thing  as  if  the  objec- 
tor had  said,  "  If  Adam  had  been  made  incapable  of  falling 
he  could  not  have  fallen."     But,  as  we  do  not  contend  for 
such  a  perfection  in  our  fust  parent,  the  objection  is  irre- 
levant.     It  should    have    been  said,  '•  If  Adam   had  been 
created  upright,  he  could  not  have  fallen."     liut  then  the 
objection  would  liave  carried  absurdity  on  the  face  of  it  : 
and  would  have  suggested  the  answer,    "  Man    could   not 
have  fallen  unless   he   had   been  created  upright."     The 
truth  is,  that  Adam  was  created  |)erfect  in  a  certain  sense. 
His  was  the   |)erfection  of  a  dependent  being,  so  consti- 
tuted as  to  be  tit  for  a  fair  probation  ;  and  therefore  capa- 
ble of  falling,  though  not   already   fallen.     Such   a  per- 
fection Adam  could  not  possess,  without  a  possibility  of 
falling.     If  he  could  not  sin,   he  could   not  freely  obey  ; 
and,  therelbre,  he  could  nut  have  been   tried  whether  he 
would  sin  or  obey. 

The  objection,  however,  in  the  mind  of  the  objector, 


THE    FALLfN    STATE    OF    MAMCI>D.  301 

implies  the  impossibility  of  any  moral  change  in  a  created 
being  who  has  received  a  previous  determination.  It  im- 
plies that  a  wicked  man  cannot  turn  from  his  w^kednes.? 
to  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right ;  and  that  a  right- 
eous  man  cannot  turn  from  his  righteousness  and  do  ini- 
quity. It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  the  scriptures  to  which 
we  have  now  alluded,  in  proof  of  the  mutability  of  the  de- 
termination of  a  moral  agent.  As  truly  as  a  wicked  man 
may  turn  from  his  wickedness,  and  a  righteous  man  mey 
turn  from  his  righteousness,  Adam  might  be  created  with 
a  right  determination,  or  be  created  a  righteous  man,  and 
afterward  turn  from  his  righteousness  :  he  might  be  made 
upright,  and  yet  subsequently  fall. 

III.  "  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  be  born  in  sin,  for 
sin  is  the  voluntary  abuse  of  one's  powers." 

To  this  we  answer: — 

1.  The  Scriptures  uniformly  assert  that  man  is  "shapen 
in  iniquity,"  and  "  conceived  in  sin  ;"  that  "  a  man  can- 
not be  clean  who  is  born  of  a  woman  ;"  and  that  "  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  and  needs  to  "  be 
born  of  the  Spirit"  before  it  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  To  contradict  this  statement  is,  therefore,  to 
contradict  the  plainest  assertions  of  Scripture. 

2.  Here  is  the  same  confusion  on  which  we  have 
remarked  in  the  counterpart  of  this  objection.  It  makes 
no  distinction  between  a  wrong  choice  and  a  wrong  dis- 
position ;  between  the  wrong  state  and  the  wrong  use 
of  our  powers.  That  man  cannot  be  born  with  any  thing 
which  implies  a  wrong  choice  already  made  is  obvious. 
Perhaps  it  will  be  granted  that  we  have  no  innate  ideas, 
and,  therefore,  as  principles  are  compounded  of  ideas,  that 
we  have  no  innate  moral  principles.  But  may  there  not 
be  a  disorder  of  the  faculties  before  those  faculties  are 
called  into  action  ?  We  easily  grant  the  possibility  of  the 
birth  of  a  human  body  disordered  in  any  of  its  senses  or 
members,  or  in  all  of  tliem.  A  human  body  may  be  born 
blind,  or  deaf,  or  dumb,  or  maimed,  or  lame.  Again  : 
A  man  may  be  born  with  a  false  taste,  which  exists  before 
either  food  or  poison  has  been  presented  to  him ;  and, 
therefore,  before  his  taste  has  been  vitiated  by  the  use  of 
poison."  Now  where  is  the  impossibility  of  the  mental 
powers  being  produced  in  disorder  1     Why  must  they  of 

26 


302        THE  FALLEN  STATE  OF  MANKIND. 

necessity  be  in  proper  order  and  harmony  ?  Why  is  it 
impossible  that  the  understanding  should  be  naturally 
blind,  and  the  passions  headstrong  ?  What  reason  is  to  be 
assigned  in  proof  that  the  taste  (shall  we  call  it)  cannot 
be  naturally  false,  and  give  a  wrong  bias  to  the  subse- 
quent choice? 

IV.  "  Do  not  you  make  God  the  author  of  sin,  by  sup. 
posing  that  he  brings  every  human  being  into  the  world 
in  a  state  of  sinful  depravity  ?  The  proper  production  of 
a  child  is  from  God.  But  if  God  produces  a  faius 
which  has  sinful  dispositions,  he  produces  those  dispo- 
sitions." 

"  This  argument  proves  too  much.  It  would  prove  God 
to  be  the  author  of  all  actual,  as  well  as  original  (or 
hereditary,  sin.  For  it  is  the  power  of  God,  under  certain 
laws  and  established  rules,  which  produces  not  only  the 
fcBtus,  but  all  the  motion  in  the  universe.  It  is  his 
power  which  so  violently  expands  the  air  on  the  discharge 
of  a  pistol  or  cannon.  It  is  the  same  which  produces 
muscular  motion,  and  the  circulation  of  all  the  juices  in 
man.  But  does  he  therefore  produce  adultery  or  murder? 
Ib  he  the  cause  of  those  sinful  motions  ?  He  is  the  cause 
of  the  motion,  (as  he  is  oi  i\\c  f(Btus.)  of  the  sin  he  is  not. 
Do  not  say  this  is  too  fine  a  distinction !  Fine  as  it  is, 
you  must  necessarily  allow  it.  Otherwise  you  make  God 
the  direct  author  of  all  the  sin  under  heaven.  To  apply 
this  more  directly  to  the  point.  God  does  produce  the 
f(2iiis  of  man  as  he  does  of  trees,  empowering  the  one 
and  the  other  to  propagate  each  after  its  kind.  And  a 
sinful  man  pro|)agates,  after  his  kind,  another  sinful  man. 
Yet  God  produces,  in  the  sense  above  mentioned,  the  man, 
but  not  the  sin." — {Mr.  J.  Wesley  on  Origimd  Sin.) 

V.  "  You  make  a  very  good  apology  for  the  wicked, 
ness  of  mankind.  If  they  be  naturatty  disposed  to  sin, 
their  sin  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  that  disposition. 
How,  then,  can  they  be  justly  blamed  for  what  is  una- 
voidable ?" 

Tliat  the  natural  depravity  of  the  human  soul  is  una- 
voidable, we  grant ;  but  not  that  the  personal  wickedness 
of  every  nian  is  unavoidable.  Nothing  but  universal  de- 
pravity Tznn  account  fur  universal  wickedness  ;  and  uni- 
vcTHal  wickedness  would  be  the  necessary  consequence 


THE    FALI|EN    STATE    OF    MANKIND.  303 

of  universal  depravity,  if  there  were  no  cure  for  it.  But 
"  the  grace  of  God,  which  bringeth  salvation,  hath  appear- 
ed unto  all  men,  teaching  them  that  denying  (renouncing), 
ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  they  should  live  soberly,, 
and  righteously,  and  godly,  in  this  present  world  ;  looking 
for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  our 
great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  who  gave  himself 
for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and 
purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works,"  Titus  ii,  11-13.  Under  these  circumstances,, 
mankind  are  placed  in  a  state  of  personal  probation  ; 
with  this  difference,  however  :  Adam  was  created  upright, 
and  was  proved  whether  he  would  fall ;  we  are  born  prone, 
and,  under  a  remediate  law,  are  proved  whether  we  will 
rise.  He  sinned  voluntarily  against  the  law  of  innocence  ; 
we  sin  voluntarily  against  the  law  of  grace.  He  sinned 
and  induced  the  disorder ;  we  sin  partly  by  neglecting 
the  remedy,  and  partly  in  consequence  of  that  neglect. 
Our  disease  is  unavoidable  ;  but  not  so  our  neglect  of  the 
cure. 

VI.  "  Such  a  dispensation,  can  never  be  reconciled  with 
the  justice  of  the  divine  administrations.  How  can  all 
mankind  justly  suffer  for  the  sin  of  one  person  ?" 

The  undeniable  fact  is,  that  all  mankind  do  actually 
suffer  by  the  sin  of  Adam.  Nor  is  there  in  this  world  any 
condition  of  human  nature,  of  which  we  have  any  know- 
ledge, in  which  many  do-  not  suffer  by  the  fault  of  others. 
Nothing  is  more  common  than  for  children  to  suffer  by  the 
folly,  extravagance,  intemperance,  or  wickedness  of  their 
parents.  Did  not  the  progeny  of  Ham,  the  families  of 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  the  children  of  Gehazi, 
suffer  by  the  sin  of  their  parents  ?  And  He  whose  com- 
mandments  are  holy,  and  just,  and  good,  speaks  of  him- 
self as  "  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  chiU 
dren  unto  the  third  and  fourth  (generation)  of  them  that 
hate  him,"  Exod.  xx,  5.  From  whence,  then,  has  the 
objector  learned  that  it  is  unjust  that  one  should  suffer  by 
the  fault  of  another  ?  Not  from  the  actual  state  of  man- 
kind,  or  from  the  sacred  Scriptures.  To  give  even  plausi. 
bility  to  the  objection,  it  must  be  stated  in  a  very  different 
form.  ■•  Say,  then,  "  It  would  be  unjust  for  mankind  to 
suffer  unavoidably  and  finally,  without  remedy,  and  with. 


304  THE  FALLEN    STATE   OF    MANKIND. 

out  advantage,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam."  But 
in  this  shape  the  objection  becomes  irrelevant  ;  because 
on  that  very  ground  on  which  Adam  was  reprieved,  a 
provision  was  made  for  the  conditional  absoUition  of  each 
individual  of  his  immense  family.  His  reprieve  o|)ened 
indeed  the  door  for  their  birtii  and  personal  existence  in  a 
state  of  thraldom,  as  it  was  derived  from  him  ;  but  not 
without  a  simultaneous  provision  for  their  deliverance. 
The  declaration  that  "  the  seed  of  the  woman  should 
bruise  the  serpent's  head,"  was  not  so  much  a  promise  to 
Adam,  as  a  denunciation  upon  the  serpent,  the  enemy, 
not  of  Adam  only,  but  of  all  his  progeny  :  and  was  a  pre- 
diction of  the  conditional  deliverance  of  the  whole  human 
race.  But  it  was  a  benefit  to  mankind,  not  indeed  tiirough 
the  first  Adam,  by  birth,  but  through  the  second  Adam,  by 
grace.  By  that  divine  declaration,  therefore,  all  mankind 
were  placed  on  new  ground.  Each  individual  has  an 
interest  in  it,  by  which  he  is  saved  from  final  and  uncon- 
ditional destruction,  and  by  which,  while  a  remedy  is  |)ro. 
vided  for  the  disorder  unconditionally  entailed  on  him,  a 
possibility  is  secured  of  its  turning  to  his  advantage. — 
Hence  whatever,  in  the  present  stage  of  human  existence, 
individuals  may  sutfcr  through  the  disobedience  of  their 
first  parents,  no  one,  merely  on  that  account,  can  sutler 
finally  and  eternally. 

Although  all  mankind  arc  involved  in  the  penal  conse- 
quences of  the  sin  of  Adam,  the  original  promise  of  a  Re- 
deemer, which  was  tiie  ground  of  the  reprieve  of  our 
otlending  parent,  or  rather  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise, 
has  arrested  the  general  sentence  of  condemnation  :  and 
while  it  conditionally  saves  the  whole  progeny  of  man 
from  final  r\iin.  it  gives  them  great  advantage.  This  con- 
solatory truth  we  learn,  not  oidy  from  the  general  tenor  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  especially  from  that  paral- 
lel, or  rather  antithesis,  which  St.  Paul  has  produced  be- 
tween the  consequences  of  the  ofi'ence  of  the  first  Adam, 
and  those  of  the  obedience  unto  deatluof  the  second  Adam. 
"  Adam  was  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.  By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the.  world,  and  death  by  sin  ; 
and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  bavt;  sinned. 
But  not  as  the  onenc(\  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For 
if  through  the  oficncc  of  one  many  be  dead  ;  much  more 


THE   FAI.I4EN    STATE    OF    MAJfKIND.  305 

the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one 
man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.  And  not 
as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift  :  for^the  judg- 
ment was  by  one  to  condemnation ;  but  the  free  gift  is 
of  many  offences  unto  justification.  For  if  by  one  man's 
offence  death  reigned  by  one ;  much  more  they  which 
receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness, shall  reign  in  Ufe  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore, 
as  by  the  offence  of  one,  or  rather  6i'  evoc  nafjanruiiaroc,  by 
one  offence,  (judgment  came)  upon  all  men  to  condem- 
nation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  or  dt'  evoc 
6iKacu/xaToc,  by  one  righteousness,  (the  free  gift  came)  upon 
all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's 
disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so,  by  the  obedi- 
ence  of  one,  shall  many  be  made  righteous.  Where  sin 
abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound.  That  as  sin 
hath  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign, 
through  righteousness,  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ,, 
our  Lord,"  Rom.  v,  12-21. 

If  this  apostolical  mode  of  reasoning  be  appropriate, 
the  present  economy  of  God,  so  far  from  being  unjust,  is, 
abundantly  merciful.  The  benefits  accruing  to  mankind 
through  the  gift  of  God,  by  grace,  must  not,  however,, 
divert  our  attention  from  our  subject.  If  righteousness 
and  life  come  by  Christ,  it  is  because  sin  and  death  first 
came  by  Adam,  verse  12.  The  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift 
by  grace,  have  abounded  unto  many,  because  through  the 
offence  of  one  many  are  dead,  verse  15.  The  free  gift  is 
of  many  offences  unto  justification,  because  first  the  judg. 
ment  was  by  one  to  condemnation,  verse  16.  If  they 
which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  right* 
eousness,  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ ;  by  one 
man's  oft'ence  death  first  reigned  over  them  by  one,  verse 
17.  The  righteousness  of  one  is  upon  all  men  unto  jus. 
tification  of  life  ;  because  by  the  offence  of  one  (judgment 
came)  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  verse  18.  If  by 
the  obedience  of  one  many  shall  be  made  righteous  ;  by 
one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  verse 
19.  And  if  grace  reign,  through  righteousness,  unto  eter-. 
nal  life  by  Jesus  Christ,  sin  had  first  reigned  unto  death, 
verse  21.  The  strength  and  extent  of  the  remedy  prove 
the  inveteracy  and  extent  of  the  disease. 
26* 


306  TIIK    FALLEN    STATK    OF    MANKIND. 

VII.  "At  this  rate  you  destroy  the  work  of  your  own 
hands.  You  first  suppose  that  ail  mankind  are  depraved 
and  ruined,  and  then  that  they  arc  all  renewed  and 
restored.  But  if  all  men  arc  renewed  and  restored  in 
Jesus  Christ,  how  can  they  be  depraved  and  ruined  in 
Adam  ?" 

We  answer  : — 

1.  If  mankind  were  personally  justified  and  sanctified 
in  Christ  Jesus,  it  would  imply  that  they  are  otherwise 
depraved  and  ruined  ;  for  if  this  were  not  the  case,  they 
would  not  need  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ. 

2.  All  mankind  are  in  such  a  sense  justified  through 
Jesus  Christ,  as  not  to  perish  finally  and  eternally 
merely  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  Hence  they  are  placed 
in  a  state  of  probation,  in  which  they  have  an  opportunity 
for  seeking  and  finding  both  a  personal  interest  in  '•  the 
grace  of  God,"  and  a  personal  participation  of  "  the 
gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ.''  In 
the  meantime,  they  are  not  so  justified  as  to  avoid  all  the 
consequences  of  the  sin  of  their  first  parent ;  as  not  to  need 
a  personal  union  with  Jesus  Christ ;  as  not  to  be  called 
to  seek  such  a  union  with  him  ;  or  as  not  to  be  finally 
condemned  for  their  own  sin,  if  they  wilfully  neglect  to 
embrace  the  Saviour  and  his  salvation. 

3.  Mankind  are  not  necessarily  regenerated  or  sancti- 
fied in  Christ  Jesus.  If  this  were  the  case,  the  fall  of 
their  parent  would  not  account  for  their  personal  sinful, 
ness.  But  the  means  of  their  regeneration  and  sanctifi< 
cation  are  provided  and  set  before  them.  They  are 
unclean  ;  but  a  fountain  is  opened  in  the  house  of  David 
for  sin  and  tor  uncleanncss,  in  which  they  may  wash  and 
be  clean.  They  are  not  whole,  but  diseased  ;  and  there- 
fore have  need  of  a  Piiysician  :  and  there  is  balm  in 
Gilead,  there  is  a  Physician  there,  by  xVhoin  all  that  cume 
to  him,  whatever  be  their  diseases,  may  be  made  whole. 
These  observations  leave  room,  however,  lor  another 
objection. 

VIII.  ••  If  all  mankind  are  guilty  and  depraved,  how 
candying  infants  l)c  made  partakers  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ?  You  grant  the  latter,  and  therefore  must  give 
up  the  former." 

Tlicrc  is  nothing  inconsistent  between   the  ruin  and 


THE    MIRACULOUS    CONCEPTION.  307 

depravity  of  infants  by  the  sin  of  their  parents,  and  their 
being  finally  saved  by  Jesus  Christ.  "  If  by  the  offence 
of  one,  judgment  came  upon  them  to  condemnation ;  so, 
by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  comes  upon  them 
unto  justification  of  life."  However  necessary  it  may  be 
that  they  who,  by  personal  sin,  have  confirmed  the  original 
sentence  of  condemnation,  should  seek  and  accept  a  per- 
sonal  interest  in  Christ,  it  cannot  be  necessary  for  those 
who  have  committed  no  personal  sin,  and  who  have  never 
been  capable  of  a  personal  application  of  the  merit  of  the 
Saviour.  As  to  their  participation  of  human  depravity, 
they  have  never,  by  an  unholy  choice  or  deed,  given  them- 
selves up  to  its  government ;  and,  therefore,  dying  in  per- 
sonal innocence,  they  may  be  renewed  by  an  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  does  not  require,  as  in  the  case  of 
adults,  their  personal  co-operation.  Their  ruin  has  been 
effected  without  their  personal  fault ;  and  their  recovery 
is  effected  without  their  personal  choice.  • 

As  the  depravity  and  ruin  of  mankind  are  clearly  and 
decisively  demonstrated,  'in  the  sacred  Scri|)tures,  to  be 
the  natural  and  judicial  consequences  of  the  sin  of  their 
first  parents,  the  whole  Socinian  system  must  fall  to  the 
ground.  The  rational  divines  must  relinquish  their  con- 
fidence  in  the  infallibility  of  human  reason  ;  grant  that  a 
divine  Redeemer  and  Restorer  is  necessary  ;  submit  to 
the  doctrine  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ;  and  acknowledge 
their  want  of  a  supernatural  influence  on  their  minds  and 
hearts,  in  order  to  their  salvation.  They  must  renounce 
their  boasts  of  the  moral  dignity  of  human  nature  ;  rank 
themselves  with  publicans  and  sinners ;  and  condescend 
to  be  saved  by  grace.  Nor  will  they  hereby  lose  any 
thing  but  their  unreasonable  prejudices  and  their  destruc- 
tive sins. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Of  the  Miraculous  Conception  of  Jesus  Christ. 

To  bring  this  doctrine  under  suspicion,  Mr.  G.  has 
given  eft,  from  Dr.  Watts,  "  the  principles  and  rules  of 
judgment,  by  which  men  are  influenced  in  deciding  upon 


308  THE    MIRACULOVS    CONCEPTION. 

matters  of  human  testimony."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  372,  &c.)  His 
rules  arc  not,  however,  exactly  applicable  to  the  present 
case.  There  is  a  considerable  ditlerence  between  those 
facts  on  the  evidence  of  which  we  receive  the  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  and  those  of  which  we  are  thereby  cer- 
tified. Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  wrought  miracles  in 
confirmation  of  tlieir  testimony.  These  were  public  and 
notorious.  But  they  have  related  many  facts  which  can 
be  ascertained  only  on  the  credit  of  their  testimony ;  be- 
cause  the  nature  of  them  is  inconsistent  with  public  noto- 
riety.  We  cannot  expect  the  same  evidence  of  our  Lord's 
transfiguration  which  we  have  of  his  resurrection  :  and 
it  would  be  still  more  unreasonable  to  expect  that  the 
miraculous  conception,  a  thing  necesarily  private,  should 
be  attested  equally  with  our  Lord's  public  miracles. 

The  evidence  which  we  have  of  this  part  of  sacred  his- 
tory is  contained  principally  in  the  accounts  which  the 
evangelists,  Matthew  and  Luke,  have  given  us  in  the  first 
two  chapters  of  their  respective  gospels.  "  If  these 
chapters  be  genuine,  that  is,  written  by  Matthew  and 
Luke,  their  authenticity,  that  is,  the  truth  of  the  facts 
recorded,  (as  Mr.  G.  justly  observes,)  must  follow  ;  the 
general  authenticity  of  these  writers  being  fully  establish, 
ed."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  37L) 

Whether  these  chapters  be  genuine,  it  shall  now  be  our 
business  to  inquire. 

L  It  is  not  a  matter  of  small  importance  that  they  now 
make  a  part  of  what  we  receive  from  our  predecessors,  as 
the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 
Wetstein,  Griesbach,  and  other  learned  editors  of  the 
New  Testament,  liave  admitted  them  without  scruple. — 
They  make  a  constituent  part  of  all  the  ancient  versions. 
With  the  cxce|)tion  of  caisiial  mutilations,  such  as  n)ay 
take  place  at  the  extremity  of  any  manuscript,  they  are 
<bund  in  all  the  ancient  co|>ics,  concerning  which  we  have 
any  iiiformation. 

II.  In  addition  to  all  this,  the  early  testimony  of  the 
Ciiristian  fathers  is  decisive  in  favour  of  their  genuineness. 

Ignatius,  the  disci|)Ie  of  John,  speaks  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  being  "  botii  of  Mary  and  of  God."  {Epist.  ad  Eph. 
sec.  7.)  "  Jesus  Christ  (he  says  again)  was,  according 
to  the  dispensation  of  God,  conceived  in  Mary,  of  the  seed 


THE    MimvCULOUS    COXCEPTIO>%  309 

of  David,  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Sec.  18.)  Mr.  G.  has 
admitted  that  Ignatius  beUeved  the  miraculous  concep. 
tion.  "  Ignatius  (he  says)  assigns  what  we  shg»yld  now 
deem  a  hidicrous  reason  for  this  concealment,  (of  the 
fact  in  question,)  that  it  might  be  hidden  from  the  devil." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  492.) 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  A.  D.  140,  makes  the  follow- 
ing allusions  to  the  passages  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke : 
'•  An  angel  was  sent  to  the  same  virgin,  saying.  Behold, 
thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb  by  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  and 
thou  shalt  bring  forth  a  son,  and  he  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  the  Highest.  And  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus, 
Luke  i,  31,  32,  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their 
sins,  Matt,  i,  21  :  as  they  have  taught,  who  have  written 
the  history  of  all  things  concerning  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  (Apol.  i.)  Again  :  "  And  the  Virgia  Mary  hav- 
ing been  filled  with  faith  and  joy,  when  the  Angel  Gabriel 
brought  her  good  tidings,  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  should 
come  upon  her,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  overshadow 
her,  and,  therefore,  that  holy  thing  born  of  her  should  be 
the  Son  of  God,  answered,  '  Be  it  unto  me  according  to 
thy  word,'  Luke  i,  35,  38."     {Dial.  par.  ii.) 

Irenoeus,  who  wrote  A.  D.  178,  says,  "  Matthew  re- 
lates  his  generation  which  is  according  to  man  :  '  The 
book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  David, 
the  son  of  Abraham.'  "  "The  gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew was  written  to  the  Jews  ;  for  they  earnestly  desired 
a  Messiah  of  the  seed  of  David  :  and  Matthew,  having 
also  the  same  desire  to  a  yet  greater  degree,  strove  by 
all  means  to  give  them  full  satisfaction,  that  Christ  was  of 
the  seed  of  David  :  wherefore  he  began  with  his  genealo- 
gy." "  But  the  <mspel  according  to  Luke,  being  of  a 
priestly  character,  oegins  with  Zacharias,  the  priest,  offer- 
ing incense  to  God.''  "  There  are  many,  and  those  very 
necessary  parts  of  the  gospel,  wliich  we  know  only  by 
his  (Luke's)  means  :  as  the  birth  of  John,  the  history 
of  Zachafias,  the  visit  of  the  angel  to  Mary,  and  the  de- 
scent of  the  angels  to  the  shepherds."  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  sec.  8  ;  cap.  xxii,  sec.  3  ;  E.  Passini  Ca- 
tena Patrum  in  Matt.  ;  apud  Massuet,  p.  347  ;  Grabe, 
p.  471  f  Lard.  Cred.  p.  ii,  ch.  17.) 

Tertullian,  who  wrote  A.  D.  200,  says,  «  The  apostles, 


310  THE    MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTION. 

John  and  Matthew,  and  apostolic  men,  Luke  and  Mark, 
teacli  us  concerning  the  one  God,  the  Creator,  and  his 
Clirist,  born  of  a  virgin."  (Adv.  Marc.  lib.  iv,  cap.  2.) 
He  asserts  the  genuineness  of  the  copies  of  the  four 
gospels  which  were  then  held  by  him,  and  appeals  to  all 
the  apostolic  churches  founded  by  Paul  and  John,  from 
whom  he  had  received  them,  in  proof  of  it."  Ibid. 
cap.  V.) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  this  subject  any  farther. 
We  have  here  the  testimonies  of  the  earliest  writers  of 
Christian  antiquity  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  and  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  chapters  in  question.  Perhaps  there 
are  not  many  particular  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which,  distinctly  considered,  descend  to  us  with  more 
positive  historical  evidence  :  and  we  may  VQnture  to 
affirm  that  the  Socinians  themselves  would  loudly  pro- 
claim  the  triumph  of  the  miraculous  conception,  if  it  were 
not  so  violently  at  odds  with  their  own  system. 

III.  To  corroborate  this  external  evidence,  the  chapters 
themselves  atlbrd  internal  proof  of  their  genuineness.  It 
divides  itself  into  two  parts. 

1.  Our  Lord  was  called  Jesus.  This  name  every 
Christian  has  been  repeatedly  told  means  a  Saviour. — 
That  he  is  eminently  the  "  Saviour  of  all  men"  is  equally 
known.  Now  how  came  it  to  pass  that  he  received  a 
name  so  expressive  of  his  office  ?  Did  his  parents  fore- 
see that  he  would  be  a  Saviour  ?  They  could  not  without 
some  divine  revelation.  Where,  then,  is  that  divine 
revelation  recorded  ?  Nowhere  but  in  the  account  of  hia 
miraculous  conception.  The  angel  which  appeared  to 
Mary  said,  "  Thou  shalt  conceive  in  thv  womb,  and 
bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus,"  Luke 
i,  31.  And  that  which  afterward  api)eared  to  Joseph, 
said,  "  She  shall  bring  forth  a  son.  and  thou  sluilt  call  his 
name  Jesus  :  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins," 
Matt,  i,  21.  These  are  the  only  accounts  which  we 
have  of  the  reason  of  his  receiving  this  appropriate  and 
significant  name. 

2.  Our  Lord  was  alwavs  denominated  by  those  who 
believed  in  him  "  the  Son  of  God."  This  appellation. 
we  have  soon,  was  peculiarly  expressive  of  his  character. 
(Sec  pp.    137-142.)     IJut  universally  as  this  appellation 


THE    MIRACULOUS    CONCEPTION.  311 

was  used,  the  reason  for  it  is  stated  nowhere,  but  in 
Luke's  account  of  the  miraculous  conception.  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  therefore  also  ^lat  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God,"  Luke  i,  35. 

If  these  passages  be  erased,  the  sacred  Scriptures  will 
be  manifestly  imperfect ;  because  they  everywhere  call 
their  great  subject  by  the  appropriate  name,  Jesus,  and 
speak  of  him  constantly  as  the  Son  of  God  :  and  yet  in 
no  other  place  do  they  state  how  it  came  to  pass  that  that 
appropriate  name  was,  from  his  childhood,  given  to  him, 
or  assign  a  reason  for  his  being  distinguished  by  so  sin- 
gular an  appellation  ?  This  is,  therefore,  a  strong  collateral 
proof  that  the  story  of  the  miraculous  conception,  and 
that  of  the  vision  of  Joseph  relative  to  it,  are  genuine. 

IV.  The  evidence  of  the  miraculous  conception  does 
not,  however,  depend  entirely  on  the  nari'atives  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  The  precise  manner  in  which  Jesus  Christ 
was  conceived  and  born,  it  is  true,  is  recorded  only  by 
those  evangelists  ;  but  the  fact  that  his  humanity  was 
produced  by  supernatural  means  has  the  countenance  of 
the  Scriptures  in  general. 

1.  What  reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  peculiar  man- 
ner  in  which  God  was  pleased  originally  to  promise  the 
coming  of  the  great  Deliverer  of  the  human  race,  unless 
it  were  to  signify  that  he  should  be  made  of  the  substance 
of  woman  without  the  concurrence  of  man  ?  Why  was  he 
denominated  the  seed  of  the  woman,  rather  than  the  seed 
of  the  man  and  of  the  woman  ?  How  is  this  question  to 
be  answered,  but  on  the  supposition  of  the  miraculous 
conception  ? 

2.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  the  reader  of  that 
prophecy  which  Matthew  has  so  properly  cited  from 
Isaiah  :  "  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son, 
and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel,"  Isa.  vii,  14 :  "  God 
with  us." 

"  At  the  time  referred  to  (in  this  chapter)  the  kingdom 
of  Judah,  under  the  government  of  Ahaz,  was  reduced 
very  low,"  and  was  threatened  by  Pekah,  king  of  Israel, 
and  R«;in,  king  of  Syria.  "  In  this  critical  conjuncture 
Ahaz  was  afraid  that  the  enemies  who  were  now  united 


312  THE    MIRACULOUS    CONCEl'TION. 

against  him  must  prevail,  destroy  Jerusalem,  end  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  and  annihilate  the  family  of  David. 
To  meet  and  remove  this  fear,  Isaiah  is  sent  from  the 
Lord  to  Ahaz,  to  assure  him  that  the  counsels  of  his  ene- 
niies  should  not  stand ;  and  that  they  should  be  utterly 
discomfited.  To  encourage  Ahaz,  he  commands  him  to 
ask  a  sign  or  miracle,  '  either  in  the  depth  or  in  the  height 
above,'  which  should  be  a  pledge  that  God  would,  in  due 
time,  fulfil  the  predictions  of  his  servant,  as  related  in  the 
context.  On  Ahaz  humbly  refusing  to  ask  any  sign,  it  is 
immediately  added,  '  Therefore  the  Lord  himself  shall 
give  you  a  sign  :  behold,  a  virgin,  shall  conceive  and  bear 
a  son,'"  &c.  {Dr.  A.  Clarke'on  Matt,  i,  23.) 

(1.)  It  is  objected,  however,  that  the  original  word, 
"  r\-yhi?  almah,  does  not  signify  a  virgin  only ;  for  it  is 
applied,  Prov.  xxx,  19,  to  signify  a  young'  married 
woman."  The  good  sense  of  the  reader  will  tell  him  that, 
in  these  words,  "the  way  of  a  man  witli  a  maid,"  there 
is  no  necessity  for  understanding  the  latter  word  as  mean- 
ing  any  thing  but  a  virgin.  •'  The  word  nr3S>'  almah, 
comes  from  oS^'  dZa?«,  to  lie  hid,  be  concealed,  A  virgin 
was  called  noSy  almah,  because,  as  a  woman,  she  had 
not  been  uncovered.  This  fully  applies  to  the  blessed 
virgin,  who  said.  How  can  tiiis  be,  seeing  I  know  no 
man?'"  {Dr.  A.  Clarke  on  Matt,  i,  23.)  It  is  an  im- 
portant confirmation  of  this,  that  the  LXX.  translate  it 
17  napdevoc,  a  virgin. 

(2.)  To  neutralize  this  passage,  the  prophecy  con- 
tained in  it  is  said  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  impregna- 
tion of  "the  ])rophetess,"  the  wife  of  Isaiah,  as  related 
in  the  following  chapter.  Whoever  candidly  compares 
the  two  passages  will  see  that  they  relate  to  two  diflbrent 
subjects.  Mahcr-shalal-hash-haz  is  not  the  same  name  as 
Immanuel.  The  prophet's  wife  beaming  a  son  is  not 
called  a  sign  :  nor  was  it  a  miracle;  but  a  thing  per- 
fectly natural.  Much  less  can  it  be  called  such  a  sign  as 
God  ollered  to  give  to  Aha/.  God  offered  tit  produce  a 
miracle  of  the  most  stupendous  nature,  '*  either  in  the 
depth  or  in  the  height  above,"  Isaiah  vii,  11  ;  whereas 
this  was  a  thing  perfectly  common. 

8.  When  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son 
of  God,'  he  says,  "  When  the  fulness  of  time  was  come, 


THE    MIKACTJIOUS   CONCEPTION.  313 

it 

God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,"  Gal.  iv,  4. 
We  should  not  have  inferred  the  miraculous  conception 
from  this  passage,  if  the  apostle  had  simply  said  he  was 
born  of  a  woman  ;  for  every  child  of  Adam  is  bCrn  of  a 
woman.  But  to  be  made  of  a  woman  is  a  thing  very 
different,  and  is  nowhere  predicated  of  any  but  of  Jesus 
Christ  only. 

V.  The  principal,  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
are  such  as,  considered  in  their  connection  with  each  other, 
require  that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  should  be 
produced  in  some  extraordinary  manner.  For  three 
reasons,  especially,  it  was  necessary  that  his  human  nature 
should  be  without  spot  of  sin. 

1.  Without  the  spotless  purity  of  his  nature,  it  could 
not  have  "  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  ful- 
ness  dwell."  "  The  temple  of  God  must  be  holy :"  but 
especially  that  temple  in  which  all  the  godhead  dwells. 
In  him  the  holy  God  could  not  be  manifested — the  holy 
Father  could  not  be  seen  in  the  Son,  unless  the  Son  were 
holy,  like  the  Father.  He  must,  therefore,  be  eminently 
«  the  Holy  One  of  God." 

2.  Without  this  spotless  purity  he  could  not  have  been 
the  "  propitiation  for  our  sins."  "  Such  a  High  Priest 
became  us,  who  is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  separate  from 
sinners,  who  needed  not  daily  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  first 
for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  "the  people^s,"  Heb.  vii, 
26,  27.  He  could  not  have  been  *'  made  sin  for  us,"  but 
that  he  "  knew  no  sin,"  2  Cor.  v,  21.  He  must  be  "just," 
who  "  died  for"  us,  "  the  unjust,"  1  Peter  iii,  18.  "  The 
blood  of  Christ  could  not  purge  our  consciences  from 
dead  works,"  unless  he  "offered  himself,  without  spot, 
to  God,"  Heb.  ix,  14.  We  must  "  have  an  advocate 
with  the  Father,"  who  is  eminently  "  the  righteous,"  and 
who  "is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,"  1  John  ii,  1.  He 
could  "take  away  our  sins,"  only  because  "in  him  was 
no  sin,"  1  John  iii,  5. 

3.  It  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  perfectly  hoi)', 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  might  be  communicated  by  him.  The 
apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  laid  their  hands  on  the  disciples, 
designating  them  as  the  persons  for  whom  they  prayed ; 
and  thejioly  Ghost  was  given  in  answer  to  their  prayer. 
But  Jesus  Christ  gives  the  Holy  Spirit : — «  If  any  man 

27 


314  THE    MIRACtTLOUS    CONCEPTIOTf. 

thirst,  said  he,  let  him  come  to  me  and  drink.  This  spake 
he  of  the  Spirit,"  John  vii,  37i  Hence  that  Spirit  is  de- 
nominated "  the  Spirit  of <the  Son,"  Gal.  iv,  6.  But  how, 
unless  he  were  without  spot  of  sin,  could  the  "  Holy  Spirit 
be  given  to  him  without  measure,"  that  "  out  of  his 
fulness  all  we  might  receive,  and  grace  on  grace  ?" — 
How  could  the  Corinthians  be  "  sanctified  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  1  Cor.  i,  2,  unless  Christ  Jesus  were  himself  per- 
fectly holy  ? 

It  appears  from  these  considerations,  not  on  Socinian, 
but  on  scriptural  principles,  that  there  was  an  absolute 
necessity  for  liis  being  pure  from  all  sin.  But  "  what  is  man 
that  he  shall  be  clean,  and  he  which  is  born  of  a  woman 
that  he  should  be  righteous  ?"  Job  xv,  14.  "  How  can  he 
be  clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman  1"  Job  xxv,  4.  •  There  is 
certainly  some  difficulty  in  tliis.  Tiiat  God  can  bring  a 
clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  is  granted.  But  bis  power 
must  be  exerted  in  that  way  which  his  wisdom  chooses. 
That  Jesus  Christ  was  "  clean,"  the  Scriptures  every- 
where maintain  ;  but  they  never  account  for  this,  except 
by  the  extraordinary  manner  of  his  birth.  "  The  Holy 
Ghost  (said  the  Angel  Gabriel)  shall  come  upon  thee, 
and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ; 
therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  Blot  out  this,  and  how 
shall  we  account  for  the  unspotted  holiness  of  the  human 
nature  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Mr.  G.  has,  however,  attempted  to  produce  some  posi- 
tive evidence  that  the  account  of  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion  is  spurious.  His  argument  is  much  more  remarkable 
for  the  contidence  with  which  it  is  stated,  than  fur  its 
novelty  ;  and  mav  be  fairly  reduced  to  the  following  pro- 
positions : — 1.  "  Among  the  ])rimitive  Christians  there 
existed  some  who  were  called  Ebionites  and  Naza- 
rencs.  These  were  one  and  the  same  people,  and  com- 
prised all  the  Hebrew  Christians."  2.  Those  Hebrew 
Christians  "  disbelieved  the  story  of  the  miraculous  con- 
ception." 3.  "  They  received  only  the  gos|)el  of  the 
Evangelist  Matthew.  1.  Their  gospel  did  not  contain 
those  chapters  which  give  an  account  of  the  miraculous 
nativity."  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  U'^O-SSa.)  If  this  be  a  just  state- 
ment   of  facts,    the   inferences  that  those  chapters  are 


THE   MntACTJLOUS    CONCEPTION.  315 

spurious,  and  that  the  story  of  the  miraculous  conception 
is  false,  are  not  without  some  degree  of  probabiUty.  But 
the  statement  itself  is  perfectly  erroneous.  ^ 

There  is  nothing  more  common  than  the  variety  of  the 
applications  which,  under  different  circumstances,  in 
distant  places,  and  in  process  of  time,  are  made  of  the 
appellations  given  to  religious  sects,  whether  according  to 
long  established  custom,  or  by  way  of  opprobrium.  We 
grant  that  the  Hebrew  Christians,  in  the  days  of  St.  Paul, 
were  called  by  the  Jews  Nazarenes :  that  there  was,  at 
a  subsequent  period,  a  sect  so  denominated  by  the  Gentile 
Christians  :  and  that  the  Ebionites  were  sometimes  called 
Nazarenes.  Nor  shall  we  peremptorily  deny  that  those 
generally  denominated  Nazarenes  were,  on  some  occa- 
sions,  because  of  certain  shades  of  similarity,  denomi- 
nated Ebionites.  What  we  assert  is,  that  the  Ebionites 
are  sometimes,  for  very  sufficient  reasons,  distinguished 
from  those  Avho  are  distinguished  as  Nazarenes  :  and  that 
the  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites  of  ecclesiastical  history  did 
not  comprise  all  the  Hebrew  Christians,  but  were  perfectly 
distinct  from  the  orthodox  Hebrews.  If  this  assertion  be 
founded  on  glaring  facts,  the  futility  of  Mr.  G.'s  argu- 
ment will  be  sufficiently  apparent. 

1.  There  were,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  certain  be- 
lieving Hebrews,  who,  instructed  by  the  first  messengers 
of  Jesus  Christ,  understood  that  he  had  "abolished  in  his 
fiesh  the  law  of  commandments  (contained)  in  ordinances," 
Eph.  ii,  15,  "  stood  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  he  had 
made  them  free,  and  were  not  entangled  again  with  the 
yoke  of  bondage,"  Gal.  v,  1,  2.  These  Ifebrews  were 
called  by  their  countrymen  "  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes," 
Acts  xxiv,  5.  They  were,  however,  distinguished  from 
those  who  are  so  called  by  the  Gentile  converts.  In 
his  commentary  on  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  Jerome  distin- 
guishes them  from  those  "  Nazarenes  who  observed  the 
law."  {Jerome  onlsa.  ix,  1,  2,  3.)  And  though  Origen 
seems  to  compreliend  the  whole  body  of  the  Hebrew. 
Christians  under  the  name  of  Ebionites,  and  affirms  that 
they  adhered  to  the  law  of  their  fathers,  {Contra  Cels.  lib. 
it,  sec.  1,)  in  anotherplace,  where  he  professes  to  describe 
the  secfs  of  the  Hebrews  with  the  greatest  accuracy,  he 
distinguishes  between  those  who,  like  other  Christians, 


316  THE    MIHACULOUS    CONCEPTION. 

entirely  discarded  the  Mosaic  l;i\v,  and  those  who  retained 
the  observation  of  the  law,  with  or  without  any  spiritual 
expositions  of  it.  (Contra  C'els.  lib.  iii,  sec.  3.)  The 
lirst,  therefore,  could  not  be  intended  to  be  compreliended 
under  the  name  of  Ebionites,  who  adhered  to  the  law  of 
their  fathers.  These,  then,  are  tiio  Hebrew  Christians 
whom,  to  serve  their  own  purpose,  the  Socinians  attempt 
to  confound  with  the  heretical  Nazarcnes. 

2.  The  Nazarenes  of  history  were  those  who,  contrary 
to  the  design  of  the  gospel,  adhered  to  the  law.  Jerome 
says,  "  To  this  day  a  heresy  prevails  among  the  Jews  in 
all  the  synagogues  of  the  east,  who  commonly  go  by  the 
name  of  Nazarenes  :  who  believe  in  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  born  of  the  virgin  ;  in  whom  we  ourselves  believe. 
But  from  a  desire  of  being  Jews  and  Christians  both  at 
once,  they  are  neither  Jews  nor  Christians."*  (Epist.  ad 
August,  torn,  iii,  fol.  155,  B.  edit.  Froben.)  They  are 
sometimes  distinguished  into  two  classes.  The  lirst  seem 
to  be  the  descendants  of  those  "  weak  brethren''  who 
were  "  zealous  for  the  law  of  their  fathers,"  though  they 
believed  in  Christ.  These  are  mentioned  by  Jerome  as 
Nazarcnes  who  observed  the  law,  but  despised  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  Phai'isees,  and  thouglit  highly  of  St.  Paul.f 
(On  Isa.  i.\,  1,  2,  3;  viii,  14,  19,  31.)  These  are  the 
Hebrews  described  by  Origen,  as  "  retaining  the  observa- 
tion  of  the  law  in  the  letter  of  the  precept,  admitting,  how- 
ever, the  same  spiritual  expositions  of  it  which  wore  set 
up  by  those  wht)  discarded  it."  (Contra  Ccls.  lib.  ii, 
sec.  3.)  The  second  sort  of  Nazarenes  were,  apparently, 
the  descendants  of  those  who,  in  the  ajjostles'  days,  taught 
the  Gentiles,  "  Except  ye  bo  circumcised  and  keep  the  law, 
ye  cannot  be  saved  ;"  and  iniieriti-d  tiieir  bigotry.  These 
are  the  Hebrews  described  by  Origen,  as  "  observing  the 
law  according  to  tiie  letter,  but  rejfeeting  all  spiritual 
expositions  of  it."  (Ibid.)  Epiphanius  descrii)cs  tliis  sect 
of  the  Nazarenes  as  a  set  of  people  hardly  to  Ix;  distin- 
.guished  from  Jews.  Jerome  distinguishes  tiiem  iVom  the 
first  sort,  as  "  believing  in  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  born 

•  Dr.  IIi)r.vlcy  thinks  "  ihcy  arose  in  ihe  second  century  fromthc 
ashes  of  the  churdi  of  Jenisnlein."  {Charge  to  the  Clagy.) 

t  Accoiiliiii;  to  Jerome,  "lliey  ackiiowlcd^^ed  in  Christ  the  Jeho- 
vah, Grod  of  hosts,  of  the  Old  Testament."  (On,  Isa.  viii,  13,  11.) 


THE    Mr^ACULOUS   CONCEPTION.  317 

«jf  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  whom  the  orthodox  believe  :  but 
as  being  so  bigoted  to  the  Mosaic  law,  that  they  were 
rather  to  be  considered  as  a  Jewish  sect  than  a  Christian." 
(Epist.  ad  Aug.) 

3.  Although  Origen  gives  the  name  of  Ebionites  to  all 
the  Hebrew  sects  which  adhered  to  the  law  of  their 
fathers,  (perhaps  for  the  sake  of  giving  an  opprobrious 
name  to  the  Nazarenes,)  that  name  is  used  by  some  of 
the  writers  of  antiquity,  as  belonging  to  a  sect  distinct 
from  tliosewhom  they  call  Nazarenes.  Epiphanius,  in 
his  book  on  heresies,  distinguishes  "  the  Ebionites  as  a 
sect  which  branched  off  from  the  Nazarenes,  ^nd  ap- 
peared not  till  after  the  destniction  of  Jerusalem." 
{Epiph.  Hccr.  30.)  Eusebius  says,  "  They  were  so  called 
from  the  word  Ebion,  which  in  Hebrew  means  poor,  be- 
cause of  the  poverty  of  their  understanding."  He  dis- 
tinguishes two  sorts  of  them.  Of  the  first  he  says  that 
"  they  esteemed  Christ  a  simple,  common,  and  mere  man, 
born  of  Joseph  and  Mary  ;  but,  on  account  of  his  im- 
provement  in  virtue,  they  thought  him  a  righteous  man  : 
and  that  they  deemed  the  observance  of  the  law  indis- 
pensably necessary  to  salvation."  Of  the  second,  he 
says,  "  They  were  called  by  the  same  name,  and  though, 
avoiding  the  follies  of  the  other  Ebionites,  they  did  not 
deny  that  Jesus  was  born  of  the  virgin  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  yet  they  fell  into  the  same  impiety  with  the  others ; 
for  they  did  not  acknowledge  either  his  divinity  or  his 
pre-existence,  or  that  he  was  the  Word  and  the  Wisdom 
of  the  Father.  They  were  also  zealous  for  the  observ- 
ance of  the  law.  Both  these,  he  says,  rejected  the  epistles 
of  St.  Paul,  and  stigmatized  him  as  a  deserter  of  the  law, 
and  a  traitor.  They  used  only  the  gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  thought  meanly  of  the  other  gospels." 
{His.  Eccles.  lib.  iii,  cap.  21.)  Irena^us,  also,  says  that 
they  '••  disowned  the  Apostle  Paul,  calling  him  an  apos- 
tate from  the  law."     (Lib.  i,  cap.  2G.) 

The  evidence  already  adduced  is  more  than  enough  to 
destroy  the  force  of  Mr.  G.'s  grand  argument.  It  already 
appears  that  though  the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes,  in  con- 
sequence  of  their  agreement  in  some  of  their  opinions, 
were  sometimes  confounded,  they  were,  in  other  respects, 
distinct  sects.  Epiphanius  says  the  Ebionites  branched 
27* 


318  THE    MIRACULOtrS    COXCEPTIOrV. 

off  from  the  Nazarenes.*  Jerome  says  the  Nazarenes 
«  acknowledged  in  Christ  the  Jehovali,  God  of  hosts  of 
the  Old  Testament."  Eusebius  says  the  Ebionites  "  did 
not  even  acknowledge  either  tlie  divinity  or  •  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  but  denied  him  to  be  the  Word 
and  the  Wisdom  of  the  Father."  Jerome  says  the 
Nazarenes  thought  highly  of  St.  Paul.  Eusebius  says 
the  Ebionites  all  "  rejected  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and 
deemed  him  an  apostate  and  a  traitor."  Iren-cEus  also 
says  they  "  disowned  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  called  him 
an  apostate  from  the  law."  It  is  equally  apparent  that 
the  Na:?arenes  were  not  the  orthodox  Hebrew  Christians; 
although  file  name  of  Nazarenes  was  first  applied  as  a 
stigma  on  the  latter.  The  Nazarenes  of  ecclesiastical 
history  adhered  to  the  law  of  their  ftithers ; .  whereas 
■when  Tertullus  accused  Paul  as  "  a  ringleader  of  the  sect 
of  the  Nazarenes,"  he  accused  him  as  one  who  despised 
the  law,  and  "  had  gone  about  to  profane  the  temple," 
Acts  xxiv,  5,  6.  This  was  one  great  point  of  difference 
between  the  Nazarenes  of  Tertullus,  and  those  to  whom 
Mr.  G.  is  so  partial. 

Having  established  these  distinctions,  we  proceed  to 
examine  Mr.  G.'s  assertions. 

1.  He  says,  "These  Hebrew  Christians  disbelieved 
the  story  of  the  miraculous  conception." 

We  reply  :  (1.)  Jerome  says,  -'  The  Nazarenes  believed 
in  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  in 
whom  the  orthodox  believe."  (2.)  Eusebius  says  that 
one  part  of  the  Ebionites  "  did  not  deny  that  Jesus  was 
born  of  the  virgin  and  tlie  Holy  Ghost."  On  Mr.  G.'s 
own  hypothesis,  that  the  "  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites  com- 
prised all  the  Hebrew  Christians,"  it  follows  that  many 
of  the  Hebrew  Christians  did  not  disbelieve  the  story  of 
the  miraculous  conception.  The  sfone,  therefore,  rolls 
back  on  himself,  with  a  monientum  increased  by  his  labour. 
He  appeals  to  the  Hebrew  Christians,  and  they  to  whom 
he  exclusively  applies  those  terms,  become  swift  witnesses 
against  him.  Again  :  aduiitting  that  some  of  the  Ebion- 
ites disbolieved  the  story  of. the  miracuhtus  conception, 
those  Ebionites  were  not  the  proper  Nazarenes ;  nor 
were  the  Nazarenes  the  orthodox  Hebrew  Christians. 
The  Ebionites  were  universally  stigmatized  as  heretics. 


THE    MIBiVCULOUS    COXCEPTION.  319 

Irenacus  says,  "  They  were  circumcised  and  retained  the 
Jewish  law,  and  Jewish  customs."  (Lib.  i,  cap.  26.) 
TertuUian  says,  "  It  was  Ebion's  heresy,  that^  he  ob- 
served and  defended  circumcision  and  the  law."  {De 
Prccs.  Hceret.  cap.  33.)  Jerome  speaks  of  them  as  a 
sect  "  anathematized  for  their  Judaism,  and  falsely  pre- 
tending to  be  Christians."  {Epis.  ad  Aug.)  Epiphanius, 
according  to  the  translation  by  Dr.  Priestley,  says  that 
Ebion  "  adopted  many  more  things  than  the  Jews,  in 
imitation  of  the  Samaritans :"  and  the  doctor  calls  the 
rites  which  they  borrowed  from  the  Samaritans,  "  abomi- 
nable  rites."  {Letter  to  Dr.  Horsley,  p.  15.)  But  the 
opinion  of  heretics  cannot  decide  what  were  the  opinions 
of  the  orthodox. 

2.  Mr.  G.  says  that  these  Hebrew  Christians  received 
only  the  gospel  by  St.  Matthew,  and  that  it  did  not  con- 
tain those  chapters  which  give  an  account  of  the  miracu- 
lous nativity. 

All  this  may  be  granted  with  respect  to  the  Ebionites. 
But  how  is  it  to  prove  that  the  chapters  contained  in  the 
gospel  by  St.  Matthew,  held  by  the  orthodox  church, 
which  consisted  of  Jews  who  stood  fast  in  the  "  liberty  with 
which  Christ  had  made  them  free,"  and  Gentiles  who 
would  not  "  be  entangled  in  the  yoke  of  bondage,"  are 
spurious?  If  the  argument  be  good,  it  will  prove  that  the 
other  three  gospels, and  all  the  epistles  are  to  be  rejected. 
But  if  the  testimony  of  these  sects  is  not  to  be  admitted 
against  the  rest  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles,  it  is  equally 
vitiated  as  it  relates  to  the  first  two  chapters  of  St. 
Matthew.  The  Socinians,  therefore,  have  yet  to  seek  posi- 
tive and  decisive  evidence  against  the  chapters  in  question. 

We  will  conclude  these  observations  with  two  quota- 
tions from  Jerome.  1.  Enumerating  the  evangelists,  he 
says,  "  The  first  is  Matthew  the  publican,  surnamed  Levi, 
who  wrote  his  gospel  in  Judea,  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
chiefly  for  the  sake  of  the  Jews  that  believed  in  Jesus, 
and  did  not  join  the  shadow  of  the  law  with  the  truth  of 
the  gospel."  (Prol.  in  Comment,  super  Matt.  T.  iv,  init.) 
2.  "  Matthew,  called  also  Levi,  first  of  all  wrote  a  gospel 
in  Judea,  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  in  Hebrew  letters, 
for  the*  sake  of  those  of  the  circumcision  who  believed. 
Moreover,  the  very  Hebrew  (gospel)  is  kept  in  the  library 


320  THE    MIRACULOUS    CONCEPTION. 

at  Cesarea,  which  was  collected  with  great  care  by  the 
martyr,  Pamphilius  ;  and  with  the  leave  of  theNazarenes 
who  live  at  Beraea,  in  Syria,  and  use  that  volume,  I 
transcribed  a  copy.  It  is  observable  that,  whenever  this 
evangelist,  in  his  own  person,  or  in  the  person  of  our 
Saviour,  quotes  any  passages  of  the  ancient  Scripture, 
he  does  not  follow  the  version  of  the  seventy,  but  the 
Hebrew  original.  Among  which  these  two  deserve 
notice  :  '  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son,'  Matt,  ii, 
15  ;  and,  '  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene,'  Matt,  ii,  23." 
{Be  Vir.  Illus.  cap.  3.) 

These  passages,  the  last  of  which  Mr.  G.  has  cited, 
(vol.  ii,  p.  381,)  but  not  without  prudently  suppressing 
the  concluding  sentences,  subvert  his  whole  hypothesis. 
This  was  an  ancient  copy  of  Matthew's  Hebrew  gospel. 
It  contains  the  parts  objected  to  by  the  Socinians.  Yet 
it  was  held  by  those  who  in  the  time  ot  Jerome  were 
known  by  the  name  of  Nazarcnes,  and  who  then  used  it. 
In  addition  to  all  this,  Jerome  says  it  was  originally 
written  to  those  Hebrews  who  did  not  mix  the  shadows 
of  the  law  with  the  truth  of  the  gospel. 

After  this  laborious,  but  vain  attempt  to  prove,  from 
external  evidence,  that  these  chapters  are  spurious,  Mr. 
G.  proceeds  to  strengthen  his  argument  by  evidence 
which  is  internal.  To  eflect  this,  be  searches  for  all  the 
dithcultics  which  those  chapters  ailbrd  him,  and  adds  a 
number  still  more  considerable  from  his  own  fruitful 
imagination. 

VVhen  a  man  has  an  hypothesis  to  serve  by  it,  he  can 
often  find  difficulties  which  would  not  have  been  per- 
ceived  by  a  candid  inquirer.  Souie  of  those  difficulties 
may  be  real ;  but  this  is  no  proof  that  the  passages  in 
which  they  occur  are  spurious;  tor  dithcuilics  may  be 
met  with  in  any  piece  of  ancient  hfstory,  and  actually 
occur  in  other  parts  of  the  sacred  writings,  which  still 
are  allowed  to  be  both  authentic  and  genuine.  Others 
of  thnni  mav  be  accounted  for  from  the  mistakes  of  tran- 
scribers without  in  the  least  invalidating  th(>  scope  ot"  the 
narrative.  Let  us  hear,  however,  what  are  Mr.  G.'s 
difficulties. 

I.  He  considers  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew's 
gospel. 


THE    MIR4CUL0rS    CONCEPTION.  321 

1 .  On  the  genealogy  he  observes,  "  It  is  the  genealogy 
of  Joseph,  not  of  Mary."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  390.) 

The  Jews  would  not  have  been  satisfied  that  their  Mes- 
siah was  of  the  house  of  David,  had  not  the  genealogy  of 
Joseph,  his  reputed  father,  been  traced  to  that  source. 
Hence  Luke,  when  he  relates  the  miraculous  conception, 
before  he  had  given  the  genealogy,  says,  "  The  Angel 
Gabriel  w^as  sent  to  a  virgin  espoused  to  a  man  whose  name 
was  Joseph,  of  the  house  of  David,"  Luke  i,  26,  27  :  and 
Matthew  relates  that  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared 
unto  him,  saying,  Joseph,  thou  son  of  David,"  Matt,  i,  20. 
It  appears  that  the  writers  of  the  miraculous  history, 
whoever  they  were,  concerned  themselves  to  point  out  the 
descent  of  Joseph,  rather  than  of  Mary.  This  was  per- 
fectly agreeable  to  the  Jewish  custom.  According  to 
Eusebius,  "  genealogies  were  reckoned  among  the  Israel- 
ites, either  according  to  nature,  or  to  law.  According  to 
law,  as  when  another  took  his  brother's  wife  to  raise  up 
seed  unto  him.  And  this  method  of  reckoning  genealo- 
gies, which  is  taken  from  the  law,  could  not  be  more 
significantly  or  properly  expressed  than  by  the  words  of 
Luke  :  being  uc  evojiisero,  as  is  reckoned  by  law,  the  son 
of  Joseph."  (Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  i,  cap.  7.)  It  is  equally 
remarkable  concerning  Matthew,  that  while  he  gives  the 
genealogy  of  Joseph,  he  changes  his  terms  at  the  end,  and 
says  not,  as  in  every  other  part  of  it,  Joseph  begat  Jesus, 
but  Joseph  was  the  husband  of  Mary,  ei  ?/f,  of  whom 
[singular]  w'as  born  Jesus. 

2.  "  Matthew  says  there  were  fourteen  generations 
from  the  captivity  to  Jesus,  whereas,  according  to  the 
account  itself,  there  were  only  thirteen."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  390.) 

What  then  ?  Mr.  G.  grants  that  "  the  genealogy  was 
found  in  several  copies  of  the  gospel  of  Matthew  used  by 
the  Jewish  Christians  :"  (vol.  ii,  p.  389  :)  therefore  it  is 
not  spurious.  But  no  matter  :  a  wound  here  may  answer 
a  good  Soeinian  purpose,  by  affecting  the  verses  which 
follow.  Griesbach,  however,  gives  authorities  for  many 
manuscripts  which  read  Jehoiachim  between  Josias  and 
Jcchonias,  according  to  1  Chron.  iii,  14-16.  This  will 
make  fourteen  generations. 

3.  "The  19th  verse  assigns  the  reason  for  Joseph's 
conduct  in  putting  her  (his  espoused  wife)  away  privily. 


322  THE    MIRACULOUS    CONCEPTION. 

that  he  was  a  just  man."  Against  this,  it  appears,  there  are 
two  objections.  (1.)  That  "  it  was  not  in  the  power  of 
Joseph  to  put  her  away  privily  after  a  contract  ofinarriage." 
(2.)  That  "  the  reason  here  given  for  .Joseph's  inten. 
tion,  viz.,  that  he  was  a  just  man,  is  a  reflection  upon  the 
justice  of  the  Deity  for  the  laws  dehvered  to  the  Jews." 
(Vol.  ii,p.  391.) 

(1.)  Mr.  G.  should  have  pointed  out  the  law  which 
prohibited  a  private  divorce  before  cohabitation.  It  is 
certain  that  Deut.  xxii,  13  does  not  refer  to  such  a  case  ; 
and  that  Deut.  xxiv  speaks  of  the  wife's  having  been  in 
t  le  husband's  house,  and  says  nothing  of  a  pubUc  divorce. 

(2.)  It  is  equally  clear  that  Deut.  xxii,  13-21  is  a  law 
made  for  the  benefit  of  the  husband,  and  that  it  does  not 
require  him  to  exhibit  a  public  complaint,  but  merely  pre- 
scribes iiow  the  matter  was  to  be  decided  in  case  he  did 
complain.  But  Joseph  may  have  had  good  reason  for 
not  arraigning  his  wife ;  because,  though  the  cause  to 
which  she  may  be  supposed  to  attribute  her  situation  was 
not  satisfactory  to  him,  it  might  be  a  very  proper  induce- 
ment to  treat  her  with  all  possible  lenity.  No  man 
could  have  acted  more  properly  in  a  conjuncture  so 
delicate. 

4.  Mr.  G.  thinks  it  "  singular"  that  the  true  state  of  the 
case  was  "not  communicated  to  Josej)h  by  Mary,  without 
so  needless  a  miracle  as  the  intervention  of  an  angel  ;  or 
if  it  had  been  communicated  to  hiiu,  that  he  did. not  give 
credit  to  Mary's  information."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  3l>3.) 

We  cannot  doubt  that  Mary  related  the  trutii  to  him  in 
her  own  vindication.  But  supposing  the  veracity  of  her 
story,  what  man,  under  similar  circumstances,  would  not 
have  been,  at  that  period,  eciually  incredulous? 

5.  He  violently  objects  to  tlie  relief  of  Joseph  from  this 
agitation,  by  a  dream.  "There  is  something  not  (piite 
satisfactory  to  the  mind  (it  seems)  in  the  account  of 
miracles  performed  in  a  dream." 

(1.)  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  what  the  Scriptures 
teach  of  God's  manner  of  acting,  to  suppose  him  to  inter- 
pose on  particular  occasions,  and  to  make  known  his  will 
to  individuals  by  a  dream.  We  have  instances  enow  in 
the  cases  of  Al)imelech,  Gen.  xx,  6  ;  of  Jacob.  (»en.  xxxi, 
II;  of  Joseph,  Gen.  xxxvii,  5;  of  Pharaoh,  Gen.  xli ; 


THE  Mia\CULOUS  CONCEPTION.         323 

and  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Dan.  iv.     These  are  a  sufficient 
apology  for  all  the  dreams  which  Matthew  has  related. 

(2.)  Though  the  dreams  of  individuals,  indepQftdent  of 
other  circumstances,  may  not  be  satisfactory  to  the  world, 
divine  dreams  have  always  been  made  satisfactory  to  the 
persons  for  whom  they  were  intended.  If  not,  how  is  it 
that  God  said,  "  If  there  be  a  prophet  among  you,  I  the 
Lord  will  speak  unto  him  in  a  dream  ?"  Num.  xii,  6.  Nor 
is  it  impossible  for  the  relation  of  such  dreams  to  become 
perfectly  credible  by  the  circumstances  of  him  that  reports 
them ;  for  why  do  we  give  credit  to  the  dreams  related  by 
Moses  and  by  Daniel  ?  But  it  answers  Mr.  G.'s  pur- 
pose to  confound  these  dreams,  which  were  granted  to  pri- 
vate individuals  for  private  purposes,  with  public  miracles, 
wrought  for  the  establishment  of  Christianity. 

6.  "  It  is  stated  that  all  this  was  done  to  fulfil  a  pro- 
phecy. The  antecedent  to  '  all  this'  must  be  the  situa- 
tion  of  Mary,  and  the  appearance  of  an  angel  in  a  dream." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  393.) 

Where  the  point  of  this  observation  lies,  it  is  difficult 
to  perceive.  But  a  man  must  say  something !  The 
words  "  all  this"  refer  to  the  situation  of  Mary,  and  the 
means  which  were  used  for  the  preservation  of  her  person 
and  purity,  that  the  prophecy  might  be  fulfilled. 

7.  "  The  angel  then  assigns  as  a  reason  for  his  being 
called  Jesus,  that  it  was  predicted  that  he  should  be  called 
Emanuel!"     (Vol.  ii,  p.  397.) 

When  ?  and  where  ?  The  angel  said  no  such  thing. 
The  prophecy  is  cited  by  Matthew  ;  not  by  the  angel. 

8.  "  Why  did  Matthew  translate  the  liebrew  word 
Emanuel  into  Greek,  when  he  wrote  for  Hebrews?" 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  397.) 

Perliaps  it  was  translated  when  the  translation  of  the 
whole  was  made,  not  improbably  by  Matthew  himself. — 
And  why  should  not  this  word,  while  the  original  is  re- 
tained  as  a  proper  name,  be  translated  with  the  rest  of 
the  book  ? 

9.  "  The  expression  '  first-born'  was  never  used  among 
the  Jews  as  applying  to  an  only  child."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  308.) 

But  it  was  ;  or  how  could  the  Jews  know  that  tlieir  first- 
born was  the  Lord's,  according  to  the  law,  until  they  had 
a  second  child  ?     The  first  child  was  the  first-born,  and 


324  THE    MIRACULOUS    CONCEPTION. 

was  the  Lord's,  whether  a  second  followed  or  not.  We 
are  not,  however,  concerned  in  the  question  whether 
Mary  had  other  children. 

10.  "  Matthew,  in  citing  the  prophecy  of  Micah,  has 
the  words  *  art  not  the  least  ;'  whereas  the  words  of 
Micah  are  '  though  thou  art  little.'  "     (Vol.  ii,  p.  408.) 

"  Some  manuscripts  of  very  good  note,  among  which  is 
the  Codex  BezcB,  have  /i^  eXaxia-Ti  ei,  Art  tiiou  not  the 
least  ?  This  reconciles  the  prophet  and  the  evangelist, 
without  farther  trouble."     (Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  loc.) 

11.  "  The  variation  will  be  observed  in  the  insertion  of 
the  word  '  governor,'  which  is  not  in  Micah,  for  '  he.'  " 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  408.) 

Suppose  that  Matthew  wrote,  according  to  Micah,  "  He 
shall  come  forth  unto  me  to  be  ruler  in  Israel,"  Micah 
V,  2.  He  that  rules  is  a  governor  who  rules  ;  and  there- 
fore our  copy  is  a  very  good  translation. 

12.  "But  it  is  most  remarkable  in  the  change  of  the 
word  '  Ephratah'  for  '  Judah,'  or  '  Judea,'  as  contained  in 
manv  Greek  copies  of  the  New  Testament."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  409.) 

Why,  then,  does  Mr.  G.  "suppose  this  change  to  be 
made  by  Matthew,"  unless  all  the  Greek  copies  had  this 
change  ?  But  the  change  itself  is  of  no  importance  when 
we  consider  that  Matthew  wrote  for  the  whole  world. 

13.  Throughout  his  whole  comment  on  Matt,  ii,  Mr. 
G.,  without  a  shadow  of  proof,  assumes  that  the  magi  who 
came  from  the  east  were  judicial  astrologers :  or,  as  he 
calls  them  "  conjurers."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  414.)  This  hypo- 
thesis affords  much  sco|)e  to  his  ingenuity.  As  many  of 
his  observations  are  founded  on  this  theory,  it  reqtiires 
some  proof.  "  The  Jews  believed  lliat  there  were  pro- 
phets in  the  kingdom  of  Saba  and  Arabia,  who  were  of 
the  posterity  of  Abraham  by  Keturah  :  and  that  they 
ta\ight  in  the  name  of  God,  what  they  had  received  in 
tradition  from  the  mouth  of  Al)raham.  That  many  Jews 
were  mixed  with  this  people,  there  is  little  doubt ;  and 
that  (hose  eastern  magi  may  have  been  originally  of  that 
class,  there  is  room. to  believe.  These,  knowing  the 
promise  of  the  Messiah,  were  now  pn^i)ably,  like  other 
brlieviiig  .lews,  waiting  for  the  consolation  of  Israel." 
(/>/•.  A.  Clarke,  in  loc.)     This  is  much  more  probable 


THK    MIRXCCLOUS    CONCEPTION.  325 

than  Mr.  G.'s  conjecture;  but  it  would  not  have  suited 
his  purposes,  which  is  to  find,  or  to  invent,  improbabiUties, 

14.  The  flight  into  Egypt  and  the  return  to  Nazareth 
are  objected  to  by  Mr.  G.  on  such  grounds  as  his  pre- 
judice, rather  tlian  liis  reason,  has  suggested.  But, 
instead  of  answering  his  cavils,  the  reader  must  be 
reminded  that  the  gospel  by  St.  Matthew,  held  by  the 
Nazarenes,  and  copied  by  Jerome,  contained  these  two 
passages  :  "  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son,"  and, 
*'  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene."  (See  p.  320.)  As 
these  passages  stand  immediately  connected,  the  first 
with  the  return  from  Egypt,  and  the  last  with  his 
coming  to  Nazareth,  the  proof  that  the  gospel  held  by 
those  Nazarenes  contained  those  accounts  is  unequivo- 
cal. Mr.  G.,  therefore,  must  grant  that  they  are  not 
spurious. 

Having  replied  to  those  objections  which  have  any 
appearance  of  solidity,  it  is  not  necessary  to  follow  Mr. 
G.  through  all  the  silly  questions  which,  to  darken  the 
subject,  he  proposes ;  or  through  the  arguments  which 
he  erects  on  difficulties  of  his  own  making.  He  may 
puzzle  himself  a  little  longer,  in  finding  how  Joseph  could 
know  the  situation  of  Mary  ;  (vol.  ii,  p.  391 ;)  and  amuse 
himself  with  conjectures  "  how  it  could  get  to  Matthew's 
knowledge  that  Joseph  had  had  a  dream."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
394.)  When  he  has  settled  these  knotty  questions,  he 
will  be  at  leisure  to  prosecute  his  inquiries  into  the  pro- 
priety of  Joseph's  behaviour  as  related  in  Matt,  i,  25. 
Though  we  think  him  a  little  unreasonable,  we  will  not 
intermeddle  in  his  quarrel  with  Matthew,  who  has  left 
Luke  to  inform  us  that  Bethlehem  was  not  the  original 
abode  of  the  holy  family.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  400.)  We  will 
not  interfere  in  the  department  of  common  sense  to  show 
him  that  the  magi  meant  they  were  in  the  east  when 
they  first  saw  the  star  of  which  they  say,  "  We  have  seen 
his  star  in  the  east."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  404.)  He  shall  still  be 
at  liberty  to  speak  of  the  wisdom  or  of  the  folly  of  these 
magi,  in  relating  at  Jerusalem  the  object  of  their  journey. 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  404.)  He  shall  not  be  beholden  to  us  for 
any  ingenious  conjecture  concerning  the  nature  of  the  star 
which  fuided  them,  its  height,  its  motions,  the  possibility 
or  impossibility  of  its  being  seen  by  other  persons,  its 
28 


326  THE  MIRACOLOUS  CONCEPTiaN. 

evanescence  or  its  permanence.  (Vol.  ii,  pp.  405,  40G.> 
We  will  not  explain  to  him  how  all  Jerusalem  might  be 
thrown  into  commotion  by  news,  which,  if  true,  bade  fair 
lo  sap  the  foundation  of  a  hated  tyrannical  government. 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  407.)  He  shall  still  be  left  to  imagine  that 
tyrants  (such  as  Herod)  are  open,  sincere,  tender-hearted, 
conscientious,  and  free  from  jealousy ;  and  that  hypo- 
crites cannot  hope  to  be  credited.  (Vol.  ii,  pp,  411-414.) 
He  shall  not  be  hindered  from  supposing  that  a  stranger 
may  easily  be  found  by  those  who  know  neither  his  name 
nor  his  residence.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  414.)  We  will  not  vindi- 
cate the  rationality  of  Herod,  who  commanded  the  wise 
men  to  "  make  diligent  search"  for  the  young  child ; 
(vol.  ii,  p.  413  ;)  or  undertake  the  arduous  task  of  teach- 
ing Mr.  G.  to  enter  into  the  feelings  of  those,  first  wor- 
shippers of  the  Messiah,  as  exemplified  in  their  joy  at 
seeing  again  the  star  which  was  to  guide  them  to  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.     (Vol.  ii,  p.  415.) 

Should  the  reader  inquire  why  a  more  particular  answer 
is  not  given  to  such  objections  as  these,  he  is  desired  to 
consider  :  1.  That  to  dwell  on  such  subjects  would  prove 
a  great  dearth  of  controversial  topics:  and  2.  That  though 
Mr.  G.  might  really  need  a  little  friendly  assistance  in 
some  serious  difficulties,  he  wants  only  the  disposition  to 
vindicate  Matthew  ngainst  these  petty  cavils  which  are 
the  fruit,  not  of  critical  sagacity,  but  of  unreasonable  pre- 
judice, and  which  are  produced  by  misconstruing  the  text, 
and  raising  objections  against  his  own  comment. 

n.  Mr.  G.  proceeds  next  to  consider  the  two  "  mira- 
culous chapters"  of  Luke's  gospel.  Those  of  Matthew 
"  appear  to  him  indisputably  spurious."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  495.) 
But  we  have  ventured  to  dispute  it.  "  Those  ascribed  to 
Luke  (he  acknowledges)  have  not  equally  strong  evidence 
against  them."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  494.)  ^f  there  is  any  evi- 
dencc  against  them,  it  will  a|)pear  in  the  examination  of 
his  Lecture.  In  the  meantime,  the  reader  will  remember 
that  we  have  found  strong  and  satisfactory  evidence  in 
their  favour. 

Having  stated  that  Luke's  gospel  was  written  in 
Greece  for  the  Gentile  converts,  (vol.  ii,  p.  431,)  he  "sup- 
poses  for  argument's  sake,"  (vol.  ii,  p.  432,)  i.  e.,  for  want 
of  argument,   "  that  at  first  it  did  not  contain  the   two 


THE    MIK4.CUL0US   CONCEPTION.  327 

c1\apters  which  relate  to  our  Lord's  nativity,  and  that 
they  were  early  foisted  in  from  some  spurious  gospel,  and 
circulated  in  this  form  till  the  adulterated  gospel  was 
universally  received."     (Vol.  ii,  pp.  431-433.) 

This  "  supposition  for  argument's  sake"  cannot  for 
truth's  sake  be  admitted. 

1.  Mr.  G.  supposes  that  this  story  of  the  miraculous 
conception  and  nativity  made  a  part  of  one  of  those  spu- 
rious  gospels  which  were  written  before  the  genuine  gos- 
pel of  Luke.  According  to  him,  therefore,  a  report  of  the 
miraculous  conception  was  extensively  spread  among  the 
Gentile  converts  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  If  this 
report  had  been  false,  the  apostles,  whose  business  it  was, 
as  Mr.  G.  contends,  to  rectify  every  mischievous  error, 
and  preserve  the  purity  of  the  gospel,  would  have 
pointedly  refuted  it  in  their  writings ;  and  their  not 
refuting  it  is  satisfactory  proof  that  it  was  true.  This 
argument  is  still  more  conclusive,  on  the  supposition  that 
the  story  was  so  early  ascribed  to  Luke. 

2.  If  Mr.  G.  suppose  that  this  story  was  not  added  to 
the  genuine  gospel  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  it  is  then 
to  be  remembered  that,  while  John  lived,  the  genuine  gos- 
pel of  Luke  was  circulated  among  all  the  Gentiles.  Theo- 
dore,  bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  says  that,  before  John  wrote 
his  gospel,  those  of  the  three  other  evangelists  "  were 
spread  over  all  the.  world,  and  were  received  by  all  the 
faithful  in  general  with  great  regard."  {Lard.  Cred.  vol. 
ix,  p.  403.)  When  so  many  copies  of  the  genuine  gospel 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  Gentile  converts,  it  would  be- 
come extremely  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  to  interpo- 
late them  all,  and  to  introduce  universally  a  doctrine  so 
contrary  to  what  had  been  received,  without  raising  vio- 
lent opposition,  and  causing  a  commotion,  the  report  of 
which  must  have  reached  even  to  the  present  times. 

3.  The  Marcionites  held  a  mutilated  gospel  attributed 
to  Luke,  which  did  not  contain  the  "  miraculous  stoiy." 
Mr.  G.  enlists  them  under  the  banner  of  Socinus,  because 
on  this  point  they  agree  with  himself:  and  he  is  welcome 
to  associate  them  with  his  party.  Tertullian  maintains 
against  them  the  genuineness  of  those  gospels  which 
teach  iMfnt  "  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin  :"  {Adv.  Marcion, 
lik  iv,  cap.  ii :)  and  of  that  of  Luke  in  particular.     "  If 


328  THE  MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTIOX. 

it  be  certain  (he  says)  that  is  most  genuine  which  ia 
most  ancient,  that  most  ancient  which  is  Irom  the  begin- 
ning,  and  that  from  the  beginning  which  is  I'rora  the 
apostles  ;  in  hke  manner  it  will  be  also  certain  that 
has  been  delivered  from  the  apostles  which  is  held  sacred 
in  the  churches  of  tlie  apostles.  Let  us  then  see  what 
milk  the  Corinthians  received  from  Paul ;  to  what  rule 
the  Galatians  were  reduced  ;  what  tlie  Philippians  read  ; 
what  the  Thessalonians,  the  Ephesians,  and  likewise  what 
the  Romans  recite,  who  arc  near  to  us,  with  whom  both 
Peter  and  Paul  left  the  gospel  sealed  with  their  blood.  { 
say,  then,  that  with  tliem,  but  not  with  them  only  which 
are  apostolical,  but  with  all  who  have  fellowship  with 
them  in  the  same  faith,  is  that  gospel  of  Luke  received 
from  its  lirst  publication  which  we  so  zealously  main- 
tain."    {Adv.  Marcian,  lib.  iv,  cap.  v.) 

Mr.  G.  already  feels  the  weight  of  this  argument,  and^ 
to  evade  it  as  well  as  he  can,  he  supposes  all  the  Gen- 
tile converts  to  have  been  perverted,  and  all  the  genuine 
gospels  to  have  been  interj)olated  :  so  that  his  faithful 
allies,  the  Ebionites,  "  had  no  alternative  but  to  receive  or 
reject  the  whole."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  435.)  Thus  all  the  Greek 
gospels  were  lost  to  what  he  would  call  the  Christian 
churches  !  Credat  Judccus  ApeUcs !  He  then  feelingly 
complains  that,  '•  of  the  conduct  of  the  Hebrew  Chris- 
tians, (the  Ebionites,)  all  the  accounts  have  come  down 
to  us  through  the  medium  of  opponents."  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
435.)  Alas  !  there  were  no  Christians  in  the  first  ages 
but  the  Ebionites  :  and  of  them  divine  providence  has 
not  permitted  one  to  give  us  a  faithful  account  of  the 
rest !  So  Mr.  G.  confesses  that  he  can  place  no  depend- 
ence on  ecclesiastical  history,  and  that  ho  is  perfectly  in 
the  dark.     But  no  matter  ; 

For  e'on  though  vnnquishM,  he  can  argue  still  ! 

As  he  finds  a  deficiency  of  external  evidence  against 
the  authenticity  of  Luke's  first  two  chapters,  he  labours 
to  find  or  to  make,  some  evidence  from  the  chapters 
themsflves. 

1.  He  opens  his  attack,  by  noticing  a  supposed  incon- 
sistency between  the  author's  introduction,  and  the  two 


THE    MIRACULOUS   CONCEPTION.  829 

first  chapters.  He  takes  for  granted  that,  in  his  intro- 
duction,  "  Luke  coukl  intend  only  to  relate  the  pubUc  life 
of  Jesus ;"  (vol.  ii,  p.  439 ;)  whereas  the  first  tvvo  chap- 
ters  refer  to  his  birth  and  education. 

If  the  reader  consult  the  first  four  verses  of  the  evan- 
gelist,  he  will  find  that  not  one  word  is  said  of  Luke's  de- 
sign  to  write  only  the  public  life  of  Jesus.  Mention  is 
there  made  of  "  many  who  had  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth 
in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  were  most 
surely  believed,  even  as  they  delivered  them  who  were 
eye  witnesses  ;"  but  Luke  says  "  it  seemed  good  to  him, 
also,  having  had  perfect  understanding  of  things  from  the 
very  first,  to  write  in  order."  Here  is  nothing  to  distin- 
guish,  in  liis  own  purpose,  between  what  was  done  pub- 
ficly  and  what  took  place  in  private.  But  if  he  had 
professed  to  Avrite  the  public  life  of  Jesus,  unless  he  had 
proposed  only  that,  who  would  find  fault  with  him  for  be- 
ginning  with  the  birth  and  education  of  the  subject  of  his 
iiistory?  If  a  writer  propose  to  relate  the  public  life  of 
some  great  man,  why  is  he  to  be  condemned  for  begin- 
ning  with  the  time  and  place  of  his  nativity,  and  the  cir- 
cunistances  of  his  introduction  to  the  scene  of  action? 

2.  "  It  is  a  singular  assertion  of  the  angel,  that  John 
should  be  '  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  even  from  his  mo- 
ther's  womb.'  No  good  can  be  imagined  to  have  accrued 
from  such  a  miracle."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  439.) 

It  is  singular  :  or  why  should  it  be  asserted  at  all  ? 
And  it  would  be  singular  if  a  Socinian  could  imagine  what 
<rood  could  accrue  from  it.  He  has  no  idea  of  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  for  the  performance  of  miracles. 
Untaught  by  the  sacred  writers,  he  never  dreams  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  "  the  Spirit  of  holiness,"  and  that  human 
beings  do  not  answer  the  purpose  of  their  creation  till 
they'^become  "  a  habitation  of  God,  tlirough  the  Spirit," 
and  are  "  filled  into  the  fulness  of  God." 

3.  "  The  promises  which  are  made  of  the  future  king- 
dom of  Jesus,  Luke  i,  31-33,  if  spiritual,  imparted  a 
degree  of  knowledge  to  Mary,  which  she  does  not  seem 
aft'erward  to  have  possessed."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  441.) 

That*  they  related  to  a  spiritual  dominion  there  is  no 
room  to  doubt :  and  that  neither  Mary  nor  the  disciples 
understood  the  precise  nature  of  that  dominion  till  a  later 

28* 


330  THE    MIltACtLOta   CONCEPTION. 

period,  we  grant.  But  the  ignorance  of  Mary,  after  the 
annunciation  of  the  angel,  is  certainly  as  excusable  aa 
that  of  the  disciples  after  the  repeated  declarations  and 
instructions  which  they  received  from  Jesus  Christ  himself. 

4.  "  That  Elizabeth  should  greet  Mary,  as  '  the  mother 
of  her  Lord,'  goes  on  the  presumption  that  Elizabeth 
knew  that  the  child  of  Mary  was  to  he  the  Messiah, 
which  was  not  known  till  thirty  years  afterward."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  444.) 

This  is  assuming  that  Luke's  account  is  false,  in  order 
to  prove  it  false,  Elizabeth  knew  that  3Iary's  child 
should  be  the  Messiah,  because  the  angel  had  said  that 
John  should  "  go  before  the  Lord  their  God,"  by  "  the 
babe  leaping  in  her  womb,"  and  by  "  being  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  Luke  i,  16,  17-41. 

5.  "  Nor  does  our  astonishment  terminate  here,  for 
Mary  also  seems  to  be  fully  aware  what  her  son  would 
be."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  444.) 

But  why  be  so  astonished  when  it  is  known  that  the 
angel  had  said,  "  Blessed  art  thou  among  women  ;  thou 
shalt  bring  forth  a  son.  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be 
called^the  Son  of  the  Highest:  and  the  Lord  God  shall 
give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  and  of  hia 
kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end  .'"  Luke  i,  28,  31-33. 

6.  He  objects  to  "  the  first  verses  of  the  second 
chapter." 

(1.)  That  "this  phrase,  'the  whole  world,'  is  generally 
used  to  signify  the  whole  Roman  empire.  Now  of  all  the 
historians  who  have  written  of  tliis  period,  not  one  haa 
mentioned  this  extraordinary  taxing  (of  the  whole  Roman 
empire)  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  Great."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  447.) 

But  what  will  this  amount  to,  unless  it  be  made  to  ap- 
pear that  Luke's  words,  Tvnaav  njv  oiKor/uvrr';  are  always 
'•  used  to  signify  the  whole  Roman  empire  ?"  Where  is 
the  proof  of  this?  Mr.  G.  may  find  this  same  evangelist 
obviously  applying  the  same  phrase  to  the  land  of  Judea. 
"  Men's  hearts  failing  them  for  fear,  and  for  looking  after 
those  tilings  which  are  coming  on  rri  lUKovutii/,  the  land." 
Compare  Luke  xxi,  21  and  26.  And  this  is  the  sense  of 
the  |)assage  in  question. 

(2.)  «  At    this   period   the   Roman    eniperors  do   not 


THE    MIKACULOUS    COXCEPTIOX.  331 

appear  to  have  interfered  at  all  iu  the  internal  manage- 
ment of  Judea."    (Vol.  ii,  p.  448.) 

But  Mr.  G.  has  not  made  it  "  appear"  that  they  did  not. 
Its  "  not  appearing,"  will  not  prove  that  Augustus  did 
not  issue  this  decree  ;  for  from  nothing,  nothing  is  to  be 
inferred. 

(3.)  "  Supposing  that  a  decree  of  this  nature  vv'aa 
issued  by  Augustus,  it  is  very  improbable  that  each  person 
should  be  compelled  to  go  to  the  city  or  town  in  wiiich  he 
was  born."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  449.) 

Are  we,  then,  to  condemn  every  thing  merely  on  our 
own  perverse  opinion  of  its  improbability  ?  Mr.  G.  should 
cither  prove  that  Luke's  statement  is  false,  or  let  it  alone. 

(4.)  "  Bethlehem  does  not  appear  to  have  been  Joseph's 
native  place."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  449.) 

It  "  does  not  appear"  that  it  was  not. 

(5.)  "  There  was  no  necessity,  according  to  the  Jewish 
customs,  for  Mary's  going."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  449.) 

If  there  w^as  no  necessity  for  it,  ''  according  to  the 
Jewish  customs,"  there  might  be  prudential  reasons  for 
her  going  with  her  husband  :  the  providence  of  God  so 
ordering  it  that  Christ  should  be  born  at  Bethlehem. 

(6.)  "  Cyrenius  was  not  made  governor  of  Syria  till 
ten  or  twelve  years  after  the  death  of  Herod."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  450.) 

Granted.  But  the  words  of  Luke,  zspurrj  riye^ovEvovrog 
n/r  'ZvpLaq  Kvprjviov,  may  1)0  translated,  before  Cyrenius  was 
governor  of  Syria.  The  word  njpu-of  is  used  in  this  sense 
in  John  i,  30  :  zipurog  nov  tjv,  ''  he  was  before  me  :"  and 
in  John  xv,  18,  "  The  world  hated  me,  zipurov  vfiuv,  before 
it  hated  you."  The  sense  is  therefore  legitimate,  and 
renders  the  passage  consistent  with  the  fact  alluded  to. 
{See  Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  he.)  Other  solutions  are  given 
by  Dr.  Lardner,  (vol.  i,  pp.  248-329,)  but  none  of  them 
satisfy  Mr.  G.  And  no  wonder  !  It  would  not  answer 
his  purpose  to  be  satisfied.  But  the  credit  of  Luke  is  not 
to  bo  affected  by  his  dissatisfaction. 

(7.)  "  But  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria,  which 
■was  ten  or  twelve  years  after  the  death  of  Herod,  there 
was  aff  enrolment  from  which  the  Jews  apprehended  entire 
slavery.  This  must  implv  that  they  had  never  before 
beenso  assessed."     (Vol.  li,  p.  453.) 


832  Tfifi    MIRACtLOrS    COPfCEPTlOK. 

Not  at  all.  The  Jews  might  patiently  endure  a  first 
enrolment,  because  they  had  neither  witnessed  nor  con- 
ceived the  effects  which  it  would  pro'duce.  Before  a 
second  was  made,  their  eyes  might  be  opened,  and  they 
might  be  more  easily  excited  to  resist.  But  this,  either 
under  a  first  or  second  enrolment,  would  depend  on  the 
zeal  of  some  individuals.  Accordingly,  the  very  passage 
which  Mr.  G.  has  cited  from  Josephus  asserts  that 
"  Judas  Gaulonites,  together  with  one  Sadducus,  a  Pha- 
risee, urged  them  to  rebel,  asserting  that  the  enrolment 
brought  upon  them  nothing  less  than  entire  slavery,  and 
calling  upon  the  nation  to  maintain  their  liberty."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  452.)  This  might  be  done  as  probably  on  the 
second  as  on  the  first  occasion. 

(8.)  But  we  have  additional  "proof  that  this  (under 
Cyrenius)  was  not  only  tlie  first,  but  the  only  assessment 
of  the  kind,  that  Gamaliel,  in  Acts  v,  :i7,  calls  the  days  of 
Judas  of  Galilee,  the  days  of  the  taxing."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  453.) 

By  no  means  :  for  Gamaliel  might  speak  thus,  because 
that  taxing  was  rendered  remarkable  by  the  insurrec- 
tion which  it  occasioned. 

Here  then  is  no  proof  of  any  error  in  the  statement  of 
Luke. 

7.  "  Another  error  M'ill  be  found  in  verses  41,  42.  It 
was  not  '  the  custom,'  among  the  Jews,  for  the  whole 
family,  or  for  both  parents  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  but  for 
males  only.  •  It  is  then  scarcely  within  the  limits  of  cre- 
dibility that  both  Joseph  and  Alary  went  up  to  Jerusalem 
every  year,  from  Nazareth,  when  tlie  law  required  the 
presence  of  JosTph  only."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  457.) 

The  words  of  the  evangelist  do  not  necessarily  imply 
that  it  was  the  custom  for  females  to  go  to  the  feast,  but 
that  it  was  the  custom  for  males  to  gd  up  when  they  were 
twelve  years  of  age.  That  the  mother  of  Jesus  should 
go  with  him  is  not  to  he  wondered,  when  wc  consider 
the  extraordinary  character  of  the  child.  Nor  can  the 
distance  of  Nazareth  from  .lerusalem  bo  a  solid  objection, 
when  it  is  considered  that  boys  of  twelve  years  went  up 
from  all  parts  of  the  land  of  Israel.  When  so  great  a 
concourse  of  people  went  up  to  the  feast,  it  would  be 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  some  women  did  not  custo- 
marily attend  them,  though  the  law  did  not  require  it. 


THE    MIrXcULOUS    CONCEPTION.  333 

8.  Mr.  G.  affects  to  raise  a  number  of  serious  objec- 
tions from  the  wonder  and  astonishment  which  were 
frequently  excited  by  new  circumstances.  Aftef  many 
extraordinary  things  had  taken  place,  "  when  Simeon 
congratulated  the  parents  of  the  child,  we  are  told 
that  Joseph  and  his  mother  marvelled."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  456.) 
They  were  amazed  when  they  found  him  in  the  temple 
conversing  with  the  doctors.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  457.)  And 
lastly,  when  he  said, "  How  is  it  that  ye  sought  me  ?  Wist 
ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my  Father's  business  ?"  to 
perfect  his  argument,  as  if  Luke  had  again  spoken  of  their 
wonder,  Mr.  G.  represents  them  as  "  at  the  acme  of 
amazement."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  458.) 

To  pass  by  this  last  mistake,  we  put  it  to  any  man  of 
sense  and  candour,  whether  it  be  not  perfectly  probable  that 
new  circumstances  should  e.xcite  new  wonder.  Who  will 
say  that  the  amazement  of  the  parents  has  not  since  been 
raised  to  a  much  higher  pitch,  and  that  it  will  cease 
before  Jesus  shall  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  when 
he  shall  be  "  admired  in  all  them  that  believe  ?" 

We  now  find  ourselves  again  in  the  midst  of  objections 
which  neither  require  nor  deserve  a  reply.  We  are  not 
concerned  to  prove  the  reasonableness  of  Mary's  agitation 
on  the  salutation  which  she  received  ;  (vol.  ii,  p.  411 ;) 
of  Elizabeth's  retirement  after  her  conception  ;  (vol.  ii, 
p.  449  ;)  of  Mary's  leaving  Elizabeth  when  she  had  about 
fulfilled  her  time;  (vol.  ii,  pp.  443,  445;)  of  the  fear  which 
came  on  the  neighbours  of  Zacharias  after  the  birth  and  cir- 
cumcision of  John  ;  (vol.  ii,  p.  445  ;)  or  of  Mary's  bring- 
ing forth  at  Bethlehem,  under  great  inconvenience,  when 
her  cousin  Elizabeth  lived  only  a  few  miles  distant,  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  455.)  Mr.  G.  shall  be  left  to  invent  a  more  delicate 
speech  for  Mary,  or  to  be  shocked  at  that  which  is  re- 
corded;  (vol.  ii,  p.  442;)  to  quarrel  with  Luke  for  not 
having  informed  iiim  when  Joseph  and  Mary  were  mar- 
ried  ;  (vol.  ii,  p.  443  ;)  for  not  making  farther  mention 
of  Elizabeth,  or  of  any  additional  visits  which  Mary  paid  to 
her;  (vol.  ii  p.  454;)  to  determine  the  nature  of  what  Eliza- 
beth felt  on  the  salutation  of  Mary,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  came^to  be  known  ;  (vol.  ii,  p.  443  :)  to  show  cause  why 
Bethlehem  was  crowded  ;  (vol.  ii,  p.  455  ;)  and  to  convince 
himself  and  his  "learned  (Socinian)  commentators"  that 


334        TUE  MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTION. 

a  manger  is  not  a  cave.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  455.)  On  such 
topics  the  bookseller  \vill  best  appreciate  his  observations. 
III.  Mr.  G.'s  "  next  point  is  lo  compare  the  accounts 
in  the  two  chapters  supposed  to  have  been  written  by 
Matthew,  with  the  two  ascribed  to  Luke."  We  haste  to 
attend  him. 

1.  "  Tlie  accounts  are  so  totally  different  that  no  one 
event  is  found  related  by  both."     (Vol.  ii,  459.) 

That  the  two  evangelists  dwell  on  different  circum- 
stances  connected  with  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  granted.  But 
this  makes  nothing  against  the  truth  of  their  history. 
Luke  relates  what  Matthew  had  omitted. 

2.  "  According  to  Matthew,  the  magi  are  the  first 
persons  who  bring  the  important  tidings  to  Jerusalem." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  4G0.) 

We  will  wait  till  Mr.  G.  have  shown  where  Matthew 
has  said  that  no  news  of  the  birth  of  Christ  had  reached 
Jerusalem  before  the  magi  came  thither.  When  this  is 
done  we  will  attend  to  the  argument  founded  on  it. 

3.  "  According  to  Matthew's  account,  Bethlehem  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  usual  residence  of  Joseph  and 
Mary."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  4G1.) 

It  may  appear  to  Mr.  G.  ;  but  to  any  person  who  can 
see  with  his  eyes,  it  will  not  appear  that  Matthew  has  said 
any  thing  about  their  usual  residence. 

4.  "  According  to  Matthew,  the  magi  are  directed  to  a 
house  as  the  residence  of  Jesus.  From  Luke  we  can  col- 
lect  only  that  he  was  laid  in  a  manger."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  4G1.) 

But  docs  Mr.  G.  "collect"  from  Luke  that  that  man- 
ger  was  in  the  open  air? 

5.  "According  to  Matthew,  Joseph  and  Mary  must 
have  stayed  at  Bethlehem  a  considerable  time  when  they 
began  their  journey  to  Egypt.  Luke  ;9tates  that  after  the 
performance  of  all  the  ceremonies,  according  to  the  law, 
thev  returned  into  Galilee,  to  their  own  city  Nazareth." 
(Vc'.l.  ii,  p.  4G'J.) 

The  words  of  Luke  do  not  necessarily  imply  tiiat  they 
went  immediately  from  Jerusalem  to  Nazareth.  It  is 
therefore  perfectly  easy  and  natural  to  suppose  that  they 
went  fust  to  Bethlehem,  wiicre  they  received  the  visit  of 
tlie  magi  ;  and  that  they  then  took  their  journey  into 
Kgypt'  Iro'"  whence  they  returned  to  Nazareth.     This 


THE  MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTION.        3S5 

gives  room  for  all  that  is  related  by  either  of  the  evan- 
gelists. 

6.  "  Luke  makes  the  parents  go  up  from  Nazjfteth  to 
Jerusalem  every  year.  Matthew  records  their  taking  a 
long  journey  into  Egypt."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  4G2.) 

Mr.  G.  cannot  prove  from  Matthew  that  the  journey  to 
Egypt  took  up  a  whole  year.  Nor  does  Luke  say  how 
long  they  had  strictly  attended  to  the  custom  of  annually 
going  up  to  Jerusalem.  His  words  may  be  true,  as 
referring  to  the  time  of  which  he  speaks,  even  if  the 
parents,  while  they  were  in  Egypt,  had  once  omitted  to 
visijt  Jerusalem. 

IV.  Mr.  G.  in  the  last  place  examines  the  evidence 
deduciblc  from  other  parts  of  evangelical  history. 

1.  "The  first  thing  that  strikes  him  is,  that  neither 
Matthew  nor  Luke  mentions  the  miraculous  conception, 
throughout  the  whole  remainder  of  their  gospels."  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  463.) 

The  frequent  recurrence  of  this  mode  of  reasoning,  and 
the  gravity  with  which  it  is  exhibited,  excite  a  desire  to 
know  what  are  the  principles  on  which  it  is  founded. 
Must  the  account  which  the  historian  gives  of  the  birth  of 
his  subject  in  the  beginning  of  his  narrative  be  deemed 
spurious  because,  after  he  has  finished  that  part  of  it,  he 
does  not  afterward  advert  to  it  ? 

2.  "  In  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  John,  these  miraculous 
events  are  altogether  omitted."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  463.) 

It  is  much  more  just  to  argue  that  if  Matthew  and 
Luke  had,  in  their  genuine  works,  given  no  account  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus,  Mark  or  John  would  have  supplied  the 
deficiency,  than  that  it  was  necessary  for  Mark  or  John 
to  repeat  what  was  already  recorded.  This  observation 
will  have  the  more  weight,  when  it  is  considered  that  an 
account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  necessary  as  a  record 
of  the  fulfilment  of  many  important  prophecies  ;  and  that 
John  wrote  his  gospel  as  a  supplement  to  the  rest.  The 
silence  of  Mark  and  John,  therefore,  if  it  prove  any  thing, 
proves  that  the  accounts  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
genuine.*     But,  allowing  Mr.  G.'s  mode  of  reasoning 

♦  Mr.  C  supposes  Mark's  gospel  to  be  an  abridgment  of  Mat- 
the\?'s,  and  then  assigns  a  curious  reason  for  Mark's  silence  on  this 
subject,  viz.,  that  Matthew's  gospel  did  not  contain  those  chapters. 


336  THE    MIRACULOUS    CONXEPTIOK. 

to  be  good,  it  will  follow  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  born 
at  all,  because  John  and  Mark  make  no  mention  of  his 
birth. 

3.  "The  commencement  of  the  chapter  which,  in  our 
received  version,  stands  as  the  third  of  the  Evangelist 
Matthew,  is  exceeding  unnatural  in  its  connection  with  the 
two  preceding  chapters."     (Vol.  ii.  p.  465.) 

Such  is  the  power  of  prejudice  !  The  third  chapter 
begins  with,  "  In  tliose  days  came  John  the  Baptist, 
preaching."  Now  let  the  reader  judge  whether  "  those 
days"  are  most  naturally  connected  with  the  words,  "  and 
from  the  carrying  away  into  Babylon  unto  Christ  are  four- 
teen generations,"  or  with  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
chapter,  which  speaks  of  Jesus'  "  dwelling  at  Nazareth." 
While  Jesus  dwelt  at  Nazareth,  "in  those  days  eame 
John  the  Baptist  preaching." 

4.  The  next  objection  is  taken  from  a  comparison  of 
the  dates  which  Luke  gives  in  the  beginning  of  his  third 
chapter,  with  what  may  be  gathered  from  Matthew.  Mr. 
G.  computes  that,  whereas  "  according  to  Luke,  our  Lord 
was  about  thirty  years  of  age  when  .lohn  opened  liis 
ministry,  according  to  Matthew  he  was  then  about  thirty, 
six  years  of  age."     (Vol.  ii.  pp.  466-4(59.) 

When  a  man  has  a  purpose  to  serve  by  a  compound 
chronological  calculation,  he  can  take  many  advantages. 
If  there  are  different  periods  from  whicli  he  may  calculate, 
he  can  fix  upon  that  which  will  best  serve  the  cause  he 
has  espoused.  Where  only  the  year  is  named,  he  cai 
take  what  month  of  it  he  chooses,  and  thereby  gain 
several  months.  And  when  time  is  to  be  allowed  for  any 
given  transaction,  he  can  lengthen  or  shorten  the  period 
of  it  as  he  pleases.*  Thus,  by  various  measures,  all 
operating  the  same  way,  he  makes  sure  of  liis  object.     But 

(Vol.  ii,  p.  IGl.)  So  an  abridijincut  proves  ihat  Ihe  original  con- 
tained nothing  but  what  is  found  in  the  abridgment.  Taking  the 
word  in  its  vulgar  sense,  we  do  not,  however,  allow  that  Mark 
abridged  Matthew. 

•  Mr.  G.  ha.s  given  u.s  a  remarkable  instasceof  this  mananirre. 
He  says  that  our  Saviour  nuisl  liave  been  between  two  and  three 
years  (if  age  wlien  Herod  died:  ii  is  generally  presumed  that  he  was 
ijnr.  Then,  instead  of  taking  that  number  which  he  grants  may 
possibly  be  jtrst,  he  lakes  iliat  which  will  best  prove  the  ehror  of  the 
cvangehst.    (Vol.  ii,  pp.  467,  4«W.) 


THE    MIkXcULOUS    CONCEPTION.  337 

this  is  not  the  method  in  which  a  candid  critic  would 
examine  the  chronology  of  a  writer.  He  would  give, 
rather  than  take,  every  advantage.  *• 

The  reign  of  Tiberius  may  be  calculated  from  two  dif- 
ferent  periods  :  the  first,  when  he  became  a  partner  in 
the  empire  with  Augustus  ;  the  second,  when  he  became 
sole  governor.  Several  learned  chronologers  are  of  opi- 
nion  that  Luke  dates  the  ministrj^  of  John  from  the  for- 
mer  of  these  periods  :  and  they  are  very  probably  in  the 
right ;  for  whatever  might  be  done  in  the  imperial  city, 
it  was  common  in  the  provinces  to  date  from  the  procon- 
sular reign.  Now  the  proconsular  reign  of  Tiberius  is 
supposed  by  some  to  have  begun  about  three  years  be- 
fore the  death  of  Augustus,  on  the  28th  of  August,  A.  U. 
764.  According  to  this  date,  the  15th  year  of  his  reign 
began  Aug.  28th,  A.  U.  778.  Supposing  that  John  be- 
gan his  ministry  in  November  following,  in  the  same  year ; 
then,  allowing  that  Jesus  was  born  in  September,  A.  U. 
748,  he  would  be  about  thirty  years  of  age  at  the  commence- 
ment of  John's  ministry.*  Mr.  G.  supposes  Herod  to  have 
died  A.  U.  750.  This  was  two  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  allow  any  more  than  about  one  year 
and  a  half  from  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  massacre  of  the 
infants  at  Bethlehem,  or  more  than  half  a  year  from  the 
massacre  to  the  death  of  Herod.  At  this  rate,  Matthew 
and  Luke  agree  exactly  in  their  chronological  dates. 

5.  "  Luke,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  alludes  to  his 
♦  former  treatise,'  and  mentions  the  nature  and  object  of 
that  treatise,  namely,  to  relate  '  all  that  Jesus  began  both 
to  do  and  to  teach.'  If  he  had  been  the  author  of  the 
two  chapters  ascribed  to  him,  it  would  have .  been  easy 
and  natural  to  liave  mentioned  these  as  included."  (Vol, 
ii,  p.  470.) 

Apply  this  to  the  genealogy,  or  to  the  ministry  of  John, 
both  of  which  are  recorded  in  the  chapters  which  Mr.  G. 
thinks  to  be  genuine,  and  try  whether  the  argument  be 
good.  And  yet  it  is  as  applicable  in  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  The  truth  is,  the  words  of  Luke  mean  no  more 
than  that  he  had  treated  of  the  acts  of  Jesus  in  his  former 

*  The  reader  may  find  the  authorities  for  this  computation  in  Dr.' 
Lardner's  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  p.  1,  b.  ii,  c.  3. 
29 


338         TUE  MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTION. 

work,  and  now  he  was  about  to  write  the  acts  of   the 
apostles. 

6.  "  Luke  states  that  all  men  mused  in  their  hearts 
of  John,  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not.  Ask 
yourselves  whether  the  author  who  wrote  the  above,  is 
the  same  as  he  who  wrote  the  account  of  the  shepherds, 
and  of  Anna."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  471.) 

Suppose  the  reports  which  were  spread  by  the  shep- 
herds, by  Anna,  and  add,  by  the  magi,  to  have  excited  an 
unusual  expectation  of  the  speedy  appearance  of  the  Mes- 
siah.  Does  it  follow  that  they  who  looked  for  him  knew 
his  person  ?  If  not,  they  might  at  first  imagine  that  John 
was  "  he  that  should  come." 

7.  "  If  the  Evangelists  Matthew  and  Luke  knew  that 
Jesus  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  would  they  not,  sometimes 
at  least,  have  denominated  him  Jesus  of  Bethlehem  ?" 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  471.) 

Is  it  clear,  beyond  all  contradiction,  that  every  person 
is  denominated  from  the  place  of  his  nativity,  rather  than 
from  the  place  of  his  long  continued  residence  ?  Had  the 
evangelists  denominated  him  Jesus,  a  native  of  Nazareth, 
Mr.  G.  might  have  made  something  of  it.  But  he  is 
denominated  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  because  "  he  dwelt  in 
Naxareth."  Let  Mr.  G.  produce  the  place  where  the 
apostles  said  or  allowed  that  Jesus  was  born  in  Nazareth, 
and  we  must  bow  to  its  authority. 

"  Then  here  is  the  passage  !  '  When  Pilate  heard  of 
Galilee,  he  asked  whether  the  man  were  a  Galilean  ;  and 
as  soon  as  he  knew  that  he  belonged  unto  Herod's  juris, 
diction,  he  sent  him  to  Herod.'  Here  you  see  an  inquiry 
is  actually  made  into  the  birthplace  of  Jesus,  and  the 
result  of  the  incjuiry  is,  that  he  was  born  at  Nazareth." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  475.) 

How  does  it  appear  that  the  "  inquiry  was  made  into 
the  birthplace  of  Jesus  1"  Is  here  one  word  about  the 
place  of  liis  birth?  And  why  was  not  the  place  of  his 
abode  tlie  subject  of  tiic  inquiry  ?  Did  not  Jesus  come 
under  Herod's  jurisdiction  by  being  an  inhabitant  of 
Galilee  ? 

8.  "It  is  recorded  of  John  that  he  '  knew  not'  Christ. 
If  the  iiuraculous  events  ncorded  in  the  first  two  chapters 
of  Matthew  and  Luke  be  true,  and  so  great  an  intimacy 


THE  weirAculous  COTsXEPTION.  33& 

subsisted  between  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  is  it  probable  that 
for  thirty  years  Jesus  should  be  unknown  to  John  ?" 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  447.) 

It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  two  persons  should  be 
thirty  years  unacquainted  with  each  other.  As  for  the 
"  miraculous  events"  of  which  Mr.  G.  speaks,  none  of 
them  had  any  reference  to  their  ever  being  brought  toge* 
ther  :  nor  can  Mr.  G.  prove  from  those  chapters  that  they  ' 
had  had  any  opportunity  of  knowing  each  other. 

9.  "  All  the  Jews  considered  Jesus  as  the  son  of  Joseph, 
and  the  evangelists,  so  far  from  contradicting  this  opi- 
nion, appear  to  have  encouraged  it,  and  to  have  believed, 
it  themselves."     (Vol.  ii,  p.  447.) 

(1.)  That  the  Jews  in  general  believed  Jesus  to  be  the 
son  of  Joseph,  is  not  denied.  Nor  is  it  denied  that  they 
were  never  better  informed  during  our  Lord's  ministry. 
Until  he  was  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power 
by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  they  were  not  likely 
to  believe  it ;  because  the  proofs  of  his  being  the  Messiah 
were  the  only  proofs  that,  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  could 
be  given  of  the  miraculous  conception,  had  it  been  an-, 
nounced  to  them.  To  have  explicitly  published  this  cir- 
cumstance before,  would  have  been  only  to  throw  a 
stumbling  block  in  their  way.  But  though  the  Jews 
thought  him  the  son  of  Joseph,  neither  Jesus  nor  his  dis- 
ciples,  when  they  were  well  informed,  ever  acquiesced  in 
that  opinion,  or  encouraged  it.  The  truth  is,  that  they 
seem  to  have  always  evaded  it.  Mr.  G.  has  attempted 
to  prove  the  contrary  :  but  without  success.  "  When  he 
was  come  into  his  own  country,  his  countrymen  said, 
Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son  ?  and  they  were  offended 
in  him.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  A  prophet  is  not  with- 
out  honour,  save  in  his  own  country,  and  in  his  own 
house,"  Matt,  xiii,  54-57.  Was  this  either  an  acknow- 
ledgment, or  a  denial,  that  he  was  the  carpenter's  son '.'  In 
the  next  passage  Mr.  G.  quotes,  his  being  the  son  of  Joseph 
is  no  part  of  the  question.  They  said,  "  Is  not  this 
the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary  ?"  Mark  vi,  3.  The  next 
passage  runs  thus  :  "  And  they  said,  Is  not  this  Joseph's 
son  ?  4iid  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  will  surely  say,  Physi- 
cian,  heal  thyself.  And  he  said,  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  no 
prophet  is  accepted  in  his  own  country,"  Luke  iv,  22-24. 


340  THE    MIRACULOUS    CO'CEPTIOX. 

"  This  (says  Mr.  G.)  is  most  assuredly  an  acknowledg- 
ment,  by  Jesus  himself,  that  he  was  the  son  of  Jo- 
seph." (Vol.  ii  p.  478.)  But  who  beside  Mr.  G.  can 
see  it  ?  It  is  an  acknowledgment  that  Nazareth  was  his 
own  country.  Mr.  G.  thinks,  however,  that  the  evan- 
gelists  believed  it  because  they  have  recorded  these  things 
without  any  note  of  censure.  (Vol.  ii,  p.  479.)  Just 
'as  well  might  he  argue  that  they  believed  Jesus  to  be  a 
blasj)hemer ! 

(2.)  The  correlative  terms,  father  and  son,  are  some- 
times used  properly,  and  sometimes  improperly.  If  this 
were  not  the  case,  how  could  "  the  author  of  the  two 
miraculous  chapters,  generally  ascribed  to  Luke,"  after 
he  had  recorded  the  miraculous  conception,  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Mary  those  words,  "  Thy  father  and  I  have 
^ught  thee  sorrowing  ?"  and  how  could  Jesus  "  call  God 
his  Father,"  and  be  the  proper  son  of  Joseph  ?  Joseph 
might  be  called  the  father  of  Jesus,  as  being  a  kind 
of  father-in-law,  and  the  term  might  be  so  used  with  per- 
fect innocence,  when  it  did  not  involve  the  question  of 
procreation.  But  Joseph  is  never  styled  his  proper 
father ;  whereas  when  "  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him,  because 
he  said  that  God  was  i6iov  rrarepa,  his  proper  Father," 
John  V,  18,  so  far  from  retracting,  he  proceeded  to  vindi- 
cate the  terms  which  he  had  used  :  and  Paul  styles  him 
Tov  i6iov  vtov,  the  proper  Son  of  God,"  Rom.  viii,  3"2. 

10.  "  When  Philip  found  Nathanacl,  he  said  unto  him. 
We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the 
prophets,  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph  !" 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  479.) 

At  this  time,  whether  the  story  of  the  miraculous  con- 
ception be  true  or  false,  Nathanael  knew  nothing  of  it. — 
He  had  but  just  become  actjuaintcd  witli  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  distinguished  him  by  the  compellation  by 
which  he  was  commonly  known.  This,  therefore,  proves 
nothing  ! 

11.  "  If  Jesus  were  not  the  son  of  Joseph,  what  pro- 
priety  or  consistency  can  there  be  in  that  appellation, 
'  the  Son  of  man  ?'  Would  tire  same  appellation  be  given 
to  Adam?"     (Vol.  ii,  p.  480.) 

What  a  blunder!  Was  .\(lam  born  of  a  woman?  But 
waiving  this;  when  Mr.  G.  has  told  us  with  what  propriety 


THE  MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTION.        341 

Jesus  was  called  "  the  Son  of  David,"  he  will  be  able  to 
assign  a  reason  for  his  calling  himself  "the  Son  of  man," 
without  supposing  that  Joseph  was  his  proper  father. 

12.  "  We  read  in  Mark  that  his  friends  saidf'  He  is 
beside  himself.'  How  consistent  this  charge  of  supposed 
insanity  ia  with  the  miraculous  chapters,  a  few  moments' 
consideration  will  enable  any  one  to  decide."  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  480.) 

One  moment  is  quite  enough  ;  for  the  charge  is  as  con- 
sistent  with  those  chapters,  as  with  the  miracles  at  his 
baptism,  or  the  miracles  which  the  inhabitants  of  Naza- 
reth  had  "  heard  were  done  in  Capernaum,"  Luke  iv,  23. 
He  that  can  reconcile  it  in  the  one  case  will  have  over-, 
come  all  the  difficulty  of  the  other. 

13.  "  Luke  is  positive  that  he  was  the  son  of  Joseph, 
really  being,  as  he  was  supposed,  the  son  of  Joseph." 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  481.) 

We  may  omit  the  passage  already  quoted  from  Euse- 
bius,  (p.  321,)  for  Mr.  G.  has  answered  his  own  argument.. 
"It  is  rather  remarkable  {says  he)  that  Grotius,  when  vin- 
dicating  the  two  genealogies,  although  he  says  Jesus  was 
not  the  son  of  Joseph,  states  that  Luke,  by  the  term  evo/ii. 
i;eto  meant  (not  the  natural,  but)  the  legal  descent."  In 
plain  words,  Joseph  was  not  the  natural,  but  the  legal 
father,  the  father-in-law  of  Jesus. 

In  concluding  this  important  subject,  it  is  but  candid  to. 
observe  that  Mr.  G.  has  taken  immense  pains  to  render 
the  miraculous  conception  doubtful.  If  the  question  is  to. 
be  decided  by  the  number  of  his  arguments,  the  victory 
will  be  indisputably  his.  But  if  a  weak  cause  can  need  to 
be  betrayed  by  the  imprudent  officiousness  of  its  apolo- 
gist, Mr.  G.  is  the  man  to  decide  its  fate.  A  few  of  his, 
arguments  have  apparent  force,  and  needed  to  be  fairly 
examined  and  refuted  :  but  the  majority  of  them  are  the 
most  unworthy  of  a  man  of  sense  that  can  be  imagined  ; 
and  precisely  such  as  Mr.  Paine  has  used  against  the 
whole  Christian  system.  It  is  not,  however,  the  business 
of  a  polemic  to  ridicule,  but  to  answer  the  arguments  of 
his  opponent.  We  have  answered  far  more  than  were, 
deserving  of  notice,  and  after  a  close  examination  of  them, 
all,  we  flee  the  doctrine  in  question  stand  unshaken  as  a 
temple,  the  main  pillars  of  which  have  not  been  even 
29* 


342  THE    INFLUENCE  OF  THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

touched.  It  is  not,  however,  Mr.  G.'s  fault  that  he  has 
not  succeeded  in  robbing  the  Redeemer  of  his  pecuHar 
glorVj  and  in  degrading  him  to  a  level  with  many  of  the 
sinners  for  whose  salvation  he  came  into  the  world. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Of  the  Ordinary  Influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  an  opinion  of  the  Socinians,  which  has  been  fre- 
quently  repeated  by  Mr.  G.,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  no 
other  than  the  energy  or  operation  of  God.  We  think  it 
right,  for  reasons  already  assigned,  (chap,  vi,)  to  hold  a 
language  which  appears  to  us  to  agree  most  exactly  with 
the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  and  to  conceive  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  of  God  energizing  or  operating  on  his  creatures, 
in  their  formation,  sustenance,  or  improvement.  But 
whether,  on  this  occasion,  we  adopt  our  own  language  or 
that  of  our  antagonist,  we  arc  warranted  to  say  it  is  not 
possible  that  any  creature  should  be  without  a  divine 
influence.  For  whether  the  divine  Spirit  be  the  divine 
energy  or  operation,  or  God  operating  on  his  creatures,  if 
that  Spirit  be  (as  the  Scriptures  assert)  everywhere  pre< 
sent,  God  is  everywhere  operating  upon  his  creatures. 

1.  The  Spirit  of  God  operated  on- all  the  creatures  at 
their  creation.  (1.)  On  things  inanimate  :  "  The  Spirit 
of  God  moveth  on  the  face  of  the  waters,"  Gen.  i,  2.  *'  By 
his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens,"  Job  xxvi,  13. 
(2.)  On  things  animate,  and  on  man  in  particular : — 
"  God  breathed  into  man  the  breath  (spirit)  of  life,  and  he 
became  a  living  soul,"  Gen.  ii,  7.  "The  Spirit  of  God 
hath  made  me,  and  the  breath  of  the  ^Imighty  hath  given 
me  life,"  Job  xxxiii,  4. 

2.  The  same  Spirit  still  operates  on  all  nature  for  the 
support  of  the  creatures  of  his  power.  (1.)  On  all  the 
vegetable  world  :  "  Thou  sendcst  ibrth  thy  Sj)irit,  they  arc 
created  :  thou  renewest  the  face  of  the  earth,"  Psalm 
civ,  .30.  (2.)  On  all  the  aninml  world  :  "  If  he  gather  unto 
himself  his  Spirit,  all  llesh  shall  perish  together,"  Job 
xxxiv,  14,  15.     (.3.)  And  on  man  in  particular:  "For  in 


THE    INFLUENCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  343 

him  we  live,    and  move,   and    have   our   being,"  Acts 
xvii,  28. 

If  the  Spirit  of  God  be  the  principal,  immediate  author 
of  every  thing  in  the  natural  world,  we  may  jusrty  expect 
to  find  him  a  principal  agent  in  the  spiritual  and  moral 
world.  Whether  man  be  considered  as  an  intelligent 
being,  it  is  God  that  "  teacheth  him  knowledge." — 
"There  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty  giveth  them  understanding,"  Job  xxxii,  8.  Or 
whether  he  be  considered  as  a  moral  agent,  it  is  but  just 
in  him  to  acknowledge,  "  Thou  Lord  hast  wrought  all  our 
works  in  us,"  Isa.  xxvi,  12.  God  "  poured  out  his  Spirit 
of  old  upon  the  house  of  Israel,"  Ezek.  xxxix,  29.  He 
"  gave  his  good  Spirit  to  instruct  them,"  Neh.  ix,  20.  His 
«  Spirit  strove  with"  them,  Gen.  vi,  3.  He  "  upheld" 
them  by  his  "  free  Spirit,"  Psa.  li,  12.  Some  of  them 
prayed  him  "  not  to  take  from  them  his  Holy  Spirit," 
Psalm  li,  11.  And  others  of  them  "  rebelled  and  vexed  his 
Holy  Spirit,"  Isaiah  Ixiii,  10.  But  the  plenitude  of  the 
Spirit  was  reserved  for  the  latter  days,  and  to  do  honour 
to  the  immediate  x-eign  of  Messiah,  who  should  "  baptize" 
his  followers  "  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  Luke 
iii,  16.  In  this  enlarged  sense,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not 
(previously)  given,  because  that  Jesus  was  not  then  glo- 
rified," John  vii,  39.  But  when  he  "  ascended  up  on  high, 
he  led  captivity  captive,  and  received  gifts  for  men  ;  yea, 
.for  the  rebellious  also,  that  the  Lord  God  might  dwell 
among  them,"  Psalm  Ixviii,  18. 

When  the  great  Head  of  the  church  sent  forth  his  apos- 
tles to  set  up  and  establish  the  new  dispensation,  and  to 
Christianize  the  world,  he  fitted  them  for  the  vast  under- 
taking by  endowing  them  with  supernatural  wisdom  and 
miraculous  power.  That  they  might  speak  the  truth  of 
God,  "  not  in  words  which  human  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,"  the  Spirit  of  truth  was 
given  to  them  to  guide  them  into  all  truth.  And  to  cor- 
roborate their  testimony,  they  were  enabled,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  work  the  most  astonishing  miracles. 
They  "  received  power  from  on  high,  when  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  come  upon  them,  and  became  witnesses"  of 
their  l4)rd.  The  "  great  salvation  which  at  first  began  to 
be  spoken  by  the  Lord  \?as  thus  confirmed  by  them  that 


344  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

heard  him ;  God  also  bearing  them  witness,  both  with 
signs  and  wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles,  and  with 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  his  own  will," 
Heb.  ii,  3,  4. 

This  extraordinary  inspiration  and  these  miraculous 
powers  were  conferred  on  the  first  messengers  of  Christ 
for  general  purposes.  The  design  of  them  was  to  enable 
the  apostles  and  their  helpers  to  spread  and  to  establish 
Christianity  among  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  use  of 
them  was  for  the  conviction  of  unbelievei-s,  and  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  church.  (Sec  1  Cor.  xiv,  4,  24.)  But  are 
these  general  purposes  the  only  purposes  for  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  been  either  promised  or  imparted  ?  Is 
not  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  necessary  to  indi- 
viduals  for  their  own  personal  salvation?  and. is  it  not 
promised,  and  has  it  not  been  imparted,  with  that  design? 
Without  any  hesitation,  we  answer.  Yes. 

When  Mr.  G.  has  occasion  to  produce  any  of  those 
passages  which  relate  to  tliis  subject,  he  has  frequently 
hinted  that  they  relate  to  the  miraculous  powers  conferred 
on  the  apostles  and  the  primitive  ministers  of  the  Chris- 
tian  church.  As  it  would  not  be  deemed  fair  to  take 
occasion  from  those  hints  to  examine  this  subject,  without 
having  produced  some  of  them,  the  reader  is  presented 
with  the  following  specimens  : — 

"  It  will  perhaps  be  asserted  that  we  do  not  believe  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  which  Jesus  and  his  apostles  so 
frequently  laid  claim."     (Vol.  i,  p.  111.) 

"It  was  the  energy,  the  power,  the  Spirit  of  God 
imparted  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles,  manifested  by 
their  performance  of  miracles."     (Vol.  i,  p.  112.) 

Si)caking  of  the  command  of  our  Lord  to  liis  apostles 
to  "  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  says,  '*  The  Hdy  Spirit,  or  divine 
energy,  which  was  exhibited  in  miracles,  is  distinguished 
from  the  Son,  as  not  being  his  own  naturally  inherent 
power,  nor  resident  in  him  alone,  but  likewise  oommuni- 
Gated  to  the  apostles."     (Vol.  i,  p.  132.) 

"Thus  they  (the  writers  of  the  New  Testament)  will 
be  found  to  have  used  the  term  Holy  Spirit,  sometimes 
as  the  cnuso,  viz.,  the  energy,  power,  or  breathing  of  God 
himself;    sometimes  as  the  cflect,  viz.,  the  power  they 


THE    INFLUEi?CE    OV    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  345 

possessed  of  working  miracles  in  consequence  of  this 
energy  or  breatliing  of  the  Deity.  These  significations 
will  be  found  consistently  to  explain  all  the  passwiges  re- 
lating to  the  Holy  Spirit.'"     (Vol.  i,  p.  1G3.) 

"  This  Holy  Ghost,  this  Comforter,  he  now  declares 
he  will  send  to  them,  and  then  states  it  to  be  that  they 
were  to  be  '  endued  with  power  from  on  high.'  This 
power,  this  Comforter,  this  Holy  Spirit  did  descend  from 
on  high  to  dwell  with  the  apostles,  and  thus  the  promise 
of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  were  fulfilled."  (Vol.  i, 
p.  163.) 

And  lastly  :  speaking  of  the  final  clause  of  the  apos- 
tolic benediction,  "  The  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be 
with  you  all,"  he  represents  the  apostle  as  wishing  all  the 
Corinthians  "  might  enjoy  a  participation  of  the  miraculous 
powers,  the  divine  influence  which  others  possessed." 
(Vol.  i,  p.  172.) 

We  have  quoted  thus  copiously  from  Mr.  G.,  that  the 
reader  may  fully  understand  the  manner  in  which  he  pre- 
cludes the  expectation  of  any  supernatural  influence  on 
the  minds  of  mankind  in  order  to  their  salvation.  From 
this  statement  two  things  may  be  gathered  :  That  the 
Socinians  suppose,  1.  That  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
restricted  to  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  the  age  of 
miracles.  And,  2.  That  it  never  was  given  but  in 
miraculous  gifts,  and  for  extraordinary  purposes.  The 
Scriptures  which  are  to  be  cited  on  this  occasion  are 
therefore  of  two  classes.  The  first  class  is  of  those  which 
speak  indefinitely  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  most  of  which 
do  not  distinguish  between  the  miraculous  and  the  saving 
influence  ;  but  which  imply  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  or  that 
it  may  be  possessed  by  all  real  Christians.  The  second 
class  are  of  those  in  which  the  ordinary  influence  of  the 
Spirit  is  obviously  distinguished  from  that  wliich  is  ex- 
traordinary, and  which  speak  of  that  ordinary  influence  in 
such  a  definite  manner,  as  to  indicate  a  benefit  ne- 
cessary for  all  men,  to  make  them  either  wise,  or  holy, 
or  happy. 

I.  Of  those  scriptures  which  speak  of  the  influence  of 
the  HoJ^'  Spirit,  in  such  a  manner  as  implies  that  it  is  or 
that  it  may  be  enjoyed  by  all  real  Christians. 

It  is  not,  perhaps,  very  easy  to  ascertain  to  what  extent 


34G  THE    rriFLUENCE    OF  THE   HOLY    SPIRIT. 

the  miraculous  gifts  were,  in  the  apostoUc  age,  given  to 
Christian  believers  ;  but  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  they  were 
not  universal.  That  many  real  Christians  did  not  possess 
them,  is  obvious  from  the  language  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
church  which  was  at  Corinth.  "  God  (said  he)  hath  set 
some  in  the  church  ;  first,  apostles  ;  secondarily,  pro- 
phets ;  thirdly,  teachers  ;  after  that  miracles  ;  then  gifts 
of  healing,  helps  in  governments,  diversities  of  tongues. 
Are  all  apostles?  Are  all  prophets?  Are  all  teachers? 
Are  all  workers  of  miracles  ?  Have  all  the  gifts  of  heal- 
ing ?  Do  all  speak  with  tongues?  Do  all  interpret?" 
1  Cor.  xii,  28-30.  But  if  all  real  Christians  did  not  enjoy 
these  miraculous  girts,  and  yet  it  should  appear  that  they 
did  enjoy,  or  were  called  to  enjoy  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  it  will  follow  that  there  is  an  influence  of  "the  Spirit 
which  is  not  miraculous  :  and  that  that  influence  is  the 
common  privilege  of  all  real  Christians. 

1.  In  the  following  scriptures  it  is  obvious  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  promised  to  all  real  Christians  : — 

(1.)  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  I  will  pour  out 
my  Spirit  upon  ail  flesh  ;  and  your  sons  and  your  daugh- 
ters  shall  prophesy,  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams, 
your  young  men  shall  see  visions:  and  also  upon  the 
servants  and  upon  the  handmaids  in  those  days  will  I  pour 
out  my  Spirit,"  Joel  ii,  28,  29.  It  is  true  this  passage 
speaks  of  the  extraordinary  and  miraculous  etTusion  of 
the  Spirit,  and  that  Peter  applied  it  to  the  spiritual  gifts 
which  were  bestowed  on  the  day  of  pentecost.  Acts  ii, 
17,  18.  But  it  is  equally  true,  that  the  prophet  speaks 
also  of  the  universal  etVusion  of  the  ordinary  influence  of 
the  Spirit.  It  is  to  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Israel  he 
promises  that  some  (not  all)  of  them  should  prophesy, 
dream  dreams,  and  sec  visions ;  but  he  promises  the 
cflusion  of  the  Spirit  to  all  flesh  ;  to  Gentiles  as  well  as 
Jews,  and  to  the  meanest  as  well  as  to  the  greatest ;  to 
the  servants,  and  to  the  handmaids. 

(2.)  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them.  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for 
the  remission  of  sins  :  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  otT,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call,"  Acts  ii,  38, 39.     Here  the  apos- 


THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  347 

tie  has  explained  the  extent  of  the  preceding  promise, 
which  he  had  taken  for  his  text.  According  to  him,  this 
inestimable  gift  is  imparted  to  all  who  repent  ,^nd  are 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  for  (expecting  through 
him)  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  And  this  he  asserts,  not 
only  of  the  Jews  and  their  children,  but  of  "  all  that  are 
afar  off,"  the  Gentiles  also  :  not  only  of  that  generation, 
but  of  all  succeeding  generations,  even  "  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

(3.)  "  In  the  last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus 
stood  and  cried,  saying.  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come 
unto  me  and  drink.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the 
Scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of 
living  water.  But  this  he  spake  of  the  Spirit,  which 
they  that  believe  on  him  should  receive,"  John  vii,  37- 
39.  What  our  Lord  has  here  said  of  living  water,  the 
evangelist  has  explained  as  meaning  the  gift  of  the  Spi- 
rit. This  Spirit  our  Lord  has  most  positively  promised 
shall  be  received  by  all  who  believe  on  him,  and  he  has 
invited,  indiscriminately,  all  who  thirst  for  it,  thus  to  come 
and  receive  it.  Precisely  of  the  same  character,  in  the 
latter  respect,  is  that  remarkable  passage,  "  Let  him  that 
is  athirst  come :  and  whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the 
water  of  life  freely,"  Rev.  xxii,  17. 

(4.)  "  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good 
gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  hea- 
venly  Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him," 
Luke  xi,  13.  Again  :  "  If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of  God, 
and  who  it  is  that  saith  unto  thee,  Give  me  to  drink,  thou 
wouldst  have  asked  of  him,  and  he  would  have  given  thee 
living  water,"  John  iv,  10.  We  have  just  seen,  in  the 
preceding  passage,  that  by  living  water  is  meant  the  Holy 
Spirit.  In  these  two  scriptures  we  are  assured  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  them  that  ask  it ;  and  the  argu- 
ment in  both  is  such  as  to  warrant  the  application  of  the 
promise  to  all  that  ask  it.  In  the  former,  our  Lord  places 
the  promise  on  the  ground  of  parental  affection,  and,  there- 
fore, intends  to  give  this  assurance  to  all  in  every  place 
and  age  ;  for  God  is  the  Father  of  all.  In  the  latter,  our 
Lord  ajjjgues  from  his  own  character  as  the  Messiah,  who 
is  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  without  measure:  and 
while  he  takes  for  granted  that  when  that  character  is 


348  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

properly  known  and  acknowledged,  the  living  water  will 
be  asked,  he  also  assures  us  that  it  shall  be  given. 

2.  The  following  scriptures  prove  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  actually  given  to  private  Christians  : — 

(1.)  "  What !  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the  temple 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  of  God  ?" 
1  Cor.  vi,  1'),  Here  the  apostle  addresses  himself  to  all 
the  members  of  the  Corinthian  church  individually,  as 
having  received  the  Holy  Spirit  from  God,  and  as  being 
his  habitation. 

(2.)  "  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  mem- 
bers,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being  manv, 
are  one  l)ody ;  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and  have  been 
all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit,"  1  Cor.  xii,  12,  1.3. 
Here,  not  merely  the  Corinthian  church,  but  the  church 
universal,  including  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  all  the 
individuals  of  which  it  is  composed,  whether  bond  or 
free,  are  positively  said  to  be  partakers  of  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

(3.)  "  This  only  would  I  learn  of  you,  Received  ye  the 
Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ? 
Are  ye  so  foolish  ?  having  l)egun  in  the  S|)irit,  are  ye  now 
made  perfect  l)y  the  tlesh  ?  He,  therefore,  that  ministercth 
to  you  the  Spirit,  and  workcth  miracles  among  you,  doth 
he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?" 
(xal.  iii,  2-5.  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  Galatians 
as  having  received  the  Spirit,  and  makes  an  obvious  dis- 
tinction between  themselves  as  private  Ciiristians,  and 
those  apostles  who  had  ministered  unto  them  the  Spirit, 
and  had  wrought  miracles  among  them.  And  to  this 
reception  of  the  Spirit  he  alludes,  as  jiaving  been  univer- 
sal, by  supposing  their  defection  from  tlie  liberty  of  the 
gospel  to  be,  in  every  case,  a  submission  to  a  principle 
opposed  to  tlie  Spirit  :  having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye 
now  made  perfect  by  the  llosh  ? 

(4.)  "  There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  arc 
called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling,"  Eph.  iv,  4.  Here 
the  individual  members  of  the  Ephesian  church  arc  sup- 
posed to  be  the  members  of  a  universal  church  which  is  in- 
habited  by  one  Spirit,  and  each  one  is  supposed  individually 


THE    INFLUEJtlCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  349 

to  participate  that  one  Spirit,  as  the  members  of  one  body 
are  individually  actuated  by  one  living  principle,  and  as 
they  were  individually  called  by  one  gospel  to  t^e  hope 
of  one  glorious  inheritance. 

(5.)  "For  our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only, 
but  also  in  power,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  much 
assurance ;  and  ye  became  followers  of  us,  and  of  the 
Lord,  having  received  the  word  in  much  affliction,  with 
joy  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  1  'Jhess.  i,  5,  6.  Thus  the 
/jhurch  at  Thessalonica  also  received  the  Holy  Ghost. — 
The  latter  part  of  the  passage  is  added  in  proof  that  ^vhat 
they  received  was  the  ordinary  influence. 

3.  The  following  passages  show  that  the  persons  who 
are  addressed  indiscriminately  had  experienced,  or  did 
at  the  time  enjoy,  the  divine  influence. 

(1.)  "  Ye  stiff-necked  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and 
ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost :  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  ye,"  Acts  vii,  51.  So  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
exerted  his  energy  on  the  minds  of  these  disobedient 
Jews,  or  they  could  not  have  resisted  him. 

(2.)  "  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye 
arc  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption,"  Eph.  iv,  30. 
The  latter  part  of  this  passage  demonstrates  that  the 
apostle  spoke  not  of  the  miraculous  influence,  but  of  the 
ordinary  :  and  the  admonition  implies  that  the  private 
members  had  received  that  influence,  for  otherwise  they 
could  not  grieve  him. 

(3.)  "  auench  not  the  Spirit,"  1  Thess.  v,  19.  The 
reader  will  remember  how  John  the  Baptist  predicted  that 
Jesus  Christ  should  "  baptize  them  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  fire."  -This  baptism  of  heavenly  fire  the  Thes- 
salonians  had  received,  and  were  in  danger  of  quenching 
it.  The  allusion  is  to  the  purifying  power  of  fire  ;  and, 
therefore,  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  which  they  had 
received  was  that  which  purifies,  and  was  not  the  mira* 
culous,  but  the  saving  influence. 

(4.)  "  And  hath  done  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  grace," 
Heb.  X,  29.  This  passage  supposes  every  apostate  from 
Christianity  to  have  enjoyed  "  the  fellowship  of  the  Spi- 
rit,"   to  which  he  has  done  despite. 

4.  Ifiere  can  be  no  propriety  in  the  language  of  the 
following  passages,  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  gift 

30 


350  TUE    INFIiUENCE     OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  common  privilege  of  all  Chris- 
tian believers. 

(1.)  "  The  communion  of  tlic  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you 
all,"  2  Cor.  xiii,  14.  This  cannot  be  interpreted  of  the 
miraculous  powers,  without  supposing,  in  contradiction 
to  the  apostle,  that  '•  all  are  workers  of  miracles." 

(2.)  "  Be  not  drunk  with  wine ;  but  be  ye  filled  with 
the  Spirit ;  speaking  to  yourselves  in  psalms,  and  hymns, 
and  spiritual  songs,  singing  and  making  melody  in  your 
heart  to  the  Lord  ;  giving  thanks  always  for  all  tbinga^ 
unto  God  and  the  Father,  in  the  name  uV  our  Lord  Jesus  . 
Christ,"  Eph.  V,  19.  This  passage  cannot  l)e  interpreted 
of  the  extraordinary  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  unless 
we  su|)pose  it  necessary  to  eveiy  act  of  religious  worship, 
and  then  it  is  no  longer  extraordinary  but  common. 

5.  The  following  scriptures  imply,  and  one  of  them 
expressly  asserts,  that  a  man  cannot  be  a  Christian  with- 
out receiving  the  Holy  Spirit : — 

(1.)  "  These  be  they  who  separate  themselves — sensual, 
having  not  the  Spirit,"  Jude  19.  It  will  not  be  objected 
that  their  not  having  miraculous  powers  is  here  intended; 
for  what  has  that  to  do  with  their  being  sensual  ? 

(2.)  "  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  tlesh  cannot  please 
God.  But  ye  arc  not  in  the  flcsli,  but  in  liie  Spirit,  if  so 
be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any  man 
have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his,"  Rom. 
viii,  9,  10.  According  to  these  two  passages,  every  man 
is  in  the  flesh,  or  is  sensual,  who  has  not  the  Spirit  of 
God  dwelling  in  him  ;  and  he  that  is  in  tiic  flesh,  or  sen- 
sual, has  not  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  him  ;  and 
he  that  is  in  the  llesh,  or  sensual,  cannot  please  God.  It 
follows  that  no  man  can  be  a  Christian  without  the  Spirit ; 
because  without  it  no  man  can  please  God. 

Let  us  now  take  a  view  of  the  result  of  this  scrutiny. 
We  have  found  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  originally  pro- 
mised to  all  real  Christians;  that  whole  Christian  socie- 
ties, and  the  Christian  church  at  large,  did  actually 
receive  it ;  that  they  who  refused  to  become  Christians, 
and  they  who  a|)09tati/.ed  iVcjm  Christianity,  in  so  doing, 
abused  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  all  true  Chris- 
tians were  in  danger  of  imitating  the  example  of  the  latter; 
that  the  apostolic  exhortations  and  benedictions  were  such 


THE    IXFLUE]!{CE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIHIT.  351 

as  imply  that  even  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit  might  be  en- 
joyed by  them  always ;  and  that  no  man  can  be  a  Chris- 
tian  without  some  measure  of  it.  From  these  truths  we 
argue :  1.  That,  since  miraculous  gifts  were  not  Assessed 
by  every  real  Christian,  the  promises  of  the  gospel  were 
not  fulfilled,  unless  the  Spirit  were  imparted  to  produce 
effects  which  were  not  miraculous.  But  all  the  promises 
of  God  are  yea,  and  amen,  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  and  there- 
fore  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  in  his  ordinary  and  saving 
influence.  2.  That  several  of  these  scriptures  cannot  be 
interpreted  of  miraculous  gifts,  without  supposing  miracu- 
lous gifts  to  be  essential  to  the  character  of  a  Christian. 
But,  if  this  could  be  proved,  it  would  equally  imply  that 
the  same  gifts  are  necessary  to  form  the  Christian  charac- 
ter now.  And  if  it  be  admitted  that  a  man  may  now  be  a 
real  Christian  though  he  do  not  possess  those  gifts,  it  will 
follow  that  a  man  might,  in  primitive  times,  be  a  Christian 
without  them.  And  if  a  Christian  might  then  be  destitute 
of  all  miraculous  gifts,  and  yet  the  spirit  of  Christ  was 
necessary  to  form  the  Christian,  it  follows  that  divine 
operations,  not  miraculous,  wei-e  then,  and  for  the  same 
reason  will  always  be  necessary.  3.  That  some  of  these 
scriptures  distinguish  the  divine  influence  of  which  they 
speak,  from  those  which  were  miraculous.  Whatever 
reason  may  be  given  for  the  effusion  of  miraculous  pow- 
ers, will  not  be  equally  a  reason  for  the  effusion  of  that 
which  was  not  miraculous.  But  every  reason  which  can 
be  given  for  the  eflusion  of  blessings  not  miraculous,  in 
the  first  ages,  will,  in  all  ages  of  the  church  militant,  be 
equally  valid.  4.  That  whereas  some  of  these  scriptures 
argue  that  a  man  could  not  be  a  Christian  in  the  apostles' 
days  without  the  spirit  of  Christ ;  the  same  argument  is 
equally  conclusive  at  the  present  period.  5.  That  this 
observation  is  corroborated  by  others  of  these  scriptures 
which  expressly  assert  that  in  all  succeeding  times  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  it  is  always  necessary  to  produce  the  same 
■effects,  shall  be  always  imparted  on  the  same  terms  on 
which  it  was  imparted  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
6.  That  if  the  primitive  Christian  church  was  intended 
to  be  a  perpetual  pattern  in  doctrine  and  in  practice, 
it  miis*  be  equally  so  in  its  means  and  enjoyments.  If 
the  truths  which  were  delivered  to  the  members  of  that 


352  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLT    SPIRIT. 

church,  by  the  apostles,  had  eitlier  a  near  or  a  distant 
relation  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  if  that  gift  was 
the  mean  by  which  those  trutlis  were  rendered  eflectual 
to  their  salvation,  the  same  trutlis  cannot  be  of  the  same 
use  to  us,  unless  they  still  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  that 
gift,  and  are  rendered  effectual  by  the  same  means.  In 
like  manner  :  if  the  practice  of  the  first  Christians  was 
the  result  of  their  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
had  the  continuance  and  increase  of  that  heavenly  gift, 
and  farther  benefits  by  that  gift,  among  its  principal  ob- 
jects and  motives,  the  same  practice  can  now  be  pro- 
duced only  by  the  same  cause,  and  needs  still  the  sti- 
mulus of  the  same  motive,  or  it  cannot  be  itself  the  same. 
This  subject,  however,  will  be  much  better  illustrated  from 
the  considerations  which  follow. 

H.  The  second  class  of  scriptures  to  which  we  refer, 
is  of  those  in  which  the  ordinary  influence  of  the  Spirit  is 
obviously  distinguished  from  the  extraordinary ;  and 
which  speak  of  the  ordinary  influence  in  such  a  definite 
manner  as  to  indicate  a  benefit  which  is  necessary  for 
all  men,  to  make  then7  either  wise,  or  holy,  or  happy. 

If  ignorance  were  truly  the  mother  of  devotion  ;  if 
religion  consisted,  as  some  seem  to  suppose,  in  morality 
without  piety,  or  in  the  Ibrm  of  godliness  without  the 
power — in  a  regular  enjoyment  of  the  creatures,  and  not 
in  the  enjoyment  of  God,  perhaps  it  might  be  possessed 
and  practised  witliout  any  illumination,  assistance,  encou- 
ragement, or  consolation  from  above.  But  if  true  religion 
require  that  we  know  the  CJod  whom  we  worship  ;  if  piety 
be  the  soul  of  all  genuine;  morality,  and  the  essence  of 
religion ;  if  the  power  as  well  as  tiie  form  be  necessary  to 
true  godliness,  and  if  God  be  the  proper  portion  of  his 
people,  no  man  can  be  a  tiidy  good  ipan  like  Barnabas, 
only  in  proportion  as  like  him  he  is  "  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  Acts  xi,  24. 

1.  According  to  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  a 
divine  and  supernatural  illumination  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  our  proper  knowledge  of  divine  and  saving  truth. 

Not  that  it  is  necessary  for -every  man,  like  the  prophets 
and  apostles,  to  receive  the  truth  by  an  immediate  revela- 
tion  from  iieaven.  "  Those  holy  men  of  tiod  spake  and 
wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghcst,"  2  Pet.  i,  2), 


THE    INFLUEN^    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  353 

**  All  (their)  scriptures  were  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,"  2  Tim.  iii,  10.  But  "  the  vision  and  the  prophecy- 
are  now  sealed,"  Dan.  vii,  24.  The  Christian  church, 
and  every  individual  member  of  it,  are  now  to  be  "  built 
on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  (only, 
where)  Jesus  Christ  is  the  chief  corner  stone,"  Eph.  iii, 
20.  The  book  of  revelation  is  now  amply  sufficient  for 
every  purpose  both  of  faith  and  practice,  and  from  thence 
"  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  every  good  work,"  2  Tim.  iii,  17.  No  man,  there- 
fore, whether  in  a  public  or  a  private  station,  has  any  scrip- 
tural right  to  expect  that  the  same  truths  shall  be  made 
known  to  him  in  the  Same  manner,  much  less  that  any 
divine  knowledge  will  be  communicated  to  him  in  addition 
to  that  which  is  given  in  the  sacred  code.  Even  Apollos, 
Avhile  immediately  e.nployed  in  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
had  no  knowledge  of  divine  things  but  what  he  had 
received  trom  the  "  Scriptures,"  and  from  the  instructions 
"  in  the  way  of  the  Lord  which  he  had  heard."  Tliough 
he  was  "  fervent  in  the  Spirit,"  and  "  spake  and  taught 
diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord,"  he  knew  "  only  the 
baptism  of  John,"  in  which  he  had  been  instructed,  until 
"  Aquila  and  Priscilla  took  him  unto  them,  and  expounded 
unto  him  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly,"  Acts  xviii, 
24-26.  This  example  may  serve  to  show  the  arrogance 
of  those  who  pretend  to  new  revelations,  and  the  folly  of 
those  who  pay  any  serious  attention  to  them.  It  was 
necessary  to  make  this  statement  for  the  prevention  of 
any  misconception  or  misrepresentation  of  what  we  have 
to  advance.  For  the  same  reason,  we  shall  endeavour  to 
avoid  the  use  of  the  word  inspiration  ;  not  because  there 
would  be  any  great  impropriety  in  the  use  of  it ;  but  be- 
cause we  have  already  applied  it,  with  the  authority  of 
Peter,  to  the  extraordinary  communications  which  were 
received  by  the  prophets  and  the  apostles. 

"  But  if  the  sacred  Scriptures  be  sufficient  for  the 
instruction  of  mankind,  what  need  can  there  be  of  a  divine 
illumination  ?"     We  answer  ; — 

(1.)   It  is  in  vain  that  visible  things  are  laid  before  a  man 

who  is4)erfectly  blind.     Yet  this  is  precisely  the  natural 

state  of  the  human  mind.     "  The  natural  man  receiveth 

not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  (the  things  revealed 

30* 


354  THE    INFLUEXCE    Of    TWE    HOLY    SPIRIT, 

by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Scriptures,)  for  they  are  foolish- 
ncss  unto  him ;  neither  can  ho  know  them,  because  they 
are  spiritually  discerned,"  1  Cor.  ii,  14.  This  spiritual 
discernment  is  what  we  want ;  the  faculty  for  discerning 
spiritual  things  being  disordered.  A  man  may  have  eyes, 
by  w  hich,  because  they  are  diseased,  he  does  not  see.  So 
mankind  "  have  eyes  and  see  not."  That  we  may  dis- 
cern spiritual  things,  the  Physician  of  the  human  mind 
exhorts  us  to  "  anoint  our  eyes  with  eye  salve  that  we  may 
see."  The  knowledge  of  divine  things  is  therefore  attri- 
buted to  a  gracious  operation  on  the  human  mind.  '•  We 
know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  (says  St.  John,)  and 
hath  given  us  an  understanding,  ttiat  we  may  know  him 
that  is  true,"  1  John  v,  20.  And  God  says,  "  J  will  give 
them  a  heart  to  know  me,"  Jer.  xxiv,  7.  "  He  that  is 
(thus  made)  spiritual,  discerneth  all  things,"  1  Cor.  ii,  15. 
(2.)  In  vain  arc  objects  of  sight  laid  before  the  eyes  of 
any  man  in  perfect  darkness ;  for  nothing  can  render 
them  visible  but  the  light.  "  That  which  niaketh  manifest 
is  light."  But  if  light  be  necessary  to  the  discernment 
of  natural  things,  spiritual  light  is  equally  necessary  to 
render  spiriltial  things  discernible.  As  the  sun  is  seen 
only  by  its  own  light,  so  God  is  known  only  in  the  light  of 
his  own  Spirit.  "  God  is  light,"  and  "  in  his  light  (only) 
we  see  liglit."  The  light  of  the  sun  displays  to  our  eye- 
sight every  other  visible  object  in  nature  ;  and  nothing 
but  the  light  of  God  can  display  to  our  minds  the  spiritual 
things  which  arc  laid  before  us  in  the  book  of  divine  reve- 
lation. It  is  thus,  and  only  thus,  we  see,  like  Moses,  •'  Him 
that  is  invisible."  Not  that  the  use  of  our  rational  or 
intellectual  powers  is  thereby  superseded,  any  more  than 
the  use  of  our  eyes  is  supersi^led  by  the  light  of  day.  Rut 
reason,  enlightened  from  above  and  ptoperly  exerted,  pro- 
duces the  "  faith  (which)  is  th(>  substance  of  things  hoped 
lor,  and  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  This  divine 
illumination  is  uniformly  uttrihuted  ton  divine  influence. 
Hence  the  apostle  prayed  in  behalf  of  the  Ephesians,  that 
they  might  "  receive  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation 
in  the  kuDwledgc  of  Him  ;  that  the  eyes  of  their  under- 
standing bring  enlightened,  they  might  know  what  is  the 
hope  of  bis  calling,  and  w  hat  the  riches  of  the  glory  of 
his  inheritance  in  the  saints,"  Eph.  i.  17,  18. 


1 
THE    INFLUENCE    OF  THE    HOLi'    SPIRIT.  355 

By  this  twofold  operation  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  other- 
wise, we  are  enabled  to  know  properly  the  things  of  God. 
We  say  properly,  because  there  is  what  is  call^  know- 
ledge,  which  may  be  attained  (perhaps)  without  it.  A  man 
blind  from  his  birth  may  by  oral  instruction  be  made  so 
far  acquainted  with  the  theory  of  light  and  colours  as  even 
to  be  able  to  teach  others  ;  but  he  will  have  no  proper 
knowledge  of  them.  His  knowledge  is  a  mere  artificial 
arrangement  of  words  without  ideas :  or  at  least  without  the 
proper  ideas.  He  can  speak  readily  of  the  source,  the 
properties,  and  the  uses  of  light  :  and  can  discourse  of 
the  comparative  beauty  of  colours,  without  any  concep- 
tion of  the  true  meaning  of  his  borrowed  words.  His 
knowledge  of  the  subject  of  his  speculations  is,  however, 
such  as  is  convertible  to  no  proper  practical  use.  It 
cannot  preserve  him  from  the  dangerous  precipice,  or 
guide  him  to  his  proper  home.  Precisely  such  is  all  the 
knowledge  of  divine  things  which  a  man  may  have  from 
any  source  of  oral  instruction  until  God  "  open  his  eyes, 
and  turn  him  from  darkness  to  light."  It  is  a  mere  arti- 
ficial arrangement  of  words  without  appropriate  ideas  ;  a 
sjieculation  of  no  more  real  use  than  the  theory  of  light 
and  colours  to  the  blind.  It  is  not  that  "  knowledge  of 
the  only  true  God,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  has 
sent,  which  is  life  eternal." 

"  The  god  of  this  Avorld  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
them  which  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious 
gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine 
unto  them,"  2  Cor.  iv,  2.  "The  veil  is  upon  their  heart. 
But  when  it  (that  veiled  heart)  shall  turn  unto  the  Lord, 
the  veil  shall  be  taken  away.  Now  the  Lord  is  that 
Spirit  [which  taketh  away  the  veil :]  and  where  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty,"  2  Cor.  iii,  17,  to  behold 
"  the  light  of  the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ."  Then  "  God, 
who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness, 
shineth  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  God,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Cor. 
iv,  6  :  and  then  "  we  all  with  unveiled  face,  beholding 
as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are  changed  into  the 
same  ifnage  from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord,"  2  Cor.  iii,  18. 

These  important  truths  will  receive  farther  confirma- 
tion from  the  following  scriptural  arguments  : — 


356  THE   INFLUKKCB    OP   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT, 

(1.)  The  apostles  received  their  verbal  inatnictions  from 
the  best  of  Teachers,  who  "  spake  as  never  man  s|)ake." 
The  Icsssons  which  tiiey  received  from  him  were  the  most 
intelligible  that,  uiuler  existing  circumstances,  could  be 
devised.  The  matter  of  them  was  adapted  to  the  state 
of  their  minds  ;  for  he  "  spake  the  word  unto  them  as 
they  were  able  to  bear  it :"  and  the  Icrins  in  which  they 
Avcredictatcd  were  appropriate  and  fmniliar.  He  answered 
all  their  questions,  obviated  their  dillicullies,  and  replied 
to  the  doubts  which  they  did  not  dare  to  utter.  But  not- 
withstanding the  unparalleled  propriety  with  which  he 
taught  them,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  divinely 
illuminated  to  understand  his  meaning.  "These  things 
have  I  spoken  unto  you,  (said  he,)  being  yet  present  with 
you.  But  the  Coml'orter,  (which  is,)  the  Holy  Cihost, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  (and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,) 
whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you,"  .John  xiv,  25,  20.  At 
another  time  '•  he  said  unto  them,  These  are  the  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that 
all  things  must  be  fullilled  which  were  written  in  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  in  the  jjrophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concern- 
ing  me."  But  they  had  not  understood  the  things  which 
ho  had  said  unlo  them  while  he  was  yet  with  them. — 
"Then  (therefore)  opened  he  their  understanding,  that 
they  might  understand  the  Scriptures."  If  then  (he  apos- 
tles needed  that  Jesus  Christ  should  "open  their  under- 
standing, that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures."  and 
that  the  Father  should  send  "  the  Holy  CJhost  to  teach 
them  all  things  whatsoever  the  Son  had  said  unto  them  ;" 
what  arrogance  is  it  for  a  Socinian  to  profess  to  teach 
his  followers  in  such  a  manner  that  (hey  shall  need  neither 
that  Christ  should  open  their  unders(;mding,  nor  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  should  illuminate  their  mind  ! 

(2.)  "  No  inati  lihth  seen  (iod  at  any  time.  The  only 
begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosDHi  of  the  Father,  he  hath 
declared  him."  "  If  ye  had  known  me,  (said  Jesus.)  ye 
should  have  known  my  Father  also,"  John  xiv,  7.  "  But 
as  no  one  knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son,  so  no  one 
knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,"  Matt,  xi,  27.  "No  man 
can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  CJhost," 
1  Cor.   xii,  3.     When  "Simon  Peter"  said.  "Thou  art 


THE    INFLUKI*CE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  357 

Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  Jesus  iiiisuered  ami 
Sciid  unto  liiiu,  IJlcssed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  for  flesh 
and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  tliee,  but  mj^Fathcr 
which  is  in  heaven,"  Matt,  xvi,  10,  17.  What  our  Lord 
said  unto  his  disciples  is  tlfcrefore  c<iually  applicable 
to  every  other  human  being  :  "  I  will  pray  tlio  Father,  and 
he  shall  give  you  another  Conilbrter,  tliat  he  may  abide 
with  vou  (my  church)  for  ever  ;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  ; 
whom  the  world  cannot  receive  (not  because  the  Father 
is  unwilling  to  send  him,  but)  because  it  seeth  hinj  not, 
neither  knoweth  (acknowledgeth)  him.  I  will  not  h.-avc 
you  comlbrtless  :  I  will  come  to  you  (in  the  Spirit.)  Yet  a 
little  while,  and  the  world  (which  cannot  receive  the  Spirit 
of  truth)  seeth  me  no  more;  but  ye  see  me  (for  1  am 
still  with  you  by  the  Sjjirit  of  truth)  because  I  live,  and  ye 
shall  live  also.  At  that  day  (when  the  Spirit  of  truth  is 
couje)  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  you  in 
me,  and  I  in  you.  lie  that  hath  my  conunandments,  and 
kecpeth  theni,  he  it  is  that  lovcth  nic  :  and  he  that  loveth 
me  (whether  he  bean  apostle  or  a  private  Christian  of  the 
first  or  of  the  nineteenth  century)  shall  be  loved  of  my 
Father  ;  and  I  will  love  him  and  will  manifest  myself  to 
him."  The  Socinians  do  not  need  to  exclaim,  "  Impos- 
sible !"  for  one,  not  a  regularly  accredited  member  of  their 
corps,  has  prevented  them.  ".ludas  said  unto  him,  (not 
Iscariot,)  Lord,  hosv  is  it  that  thou  wilt  manifest  thyself 
imto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world  ?  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  him,  Ifaman(at  any  tinie,orin  any  part  of  the 
worlil)  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words  :  and  my  Father 
will  love  him,  and  wc  will  come  unto  him,  (by  the  Spirit 
w  hich  '  shall  be  in  you,')  and  make  our  abode  with  him," 
John  xiv,  10-23. 

(3.)  Hence  the  Apostle  John,  addressing  his  general 
epistle  to  the  private  members  of  the  Christian  church, 
.some  of  whom  were  mere  "babes  in  Christ,"  says,  "  Lit- 
tie  children,  it  is  the  last  time  :  and  as  ye  have  heard  that 
antichrist  shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many  antichrists. 
But  ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know 
all  things  (which  are  essential  to  Christianity,  and  con- 
nected with  your  welfare.)  I  have  not  written  unto  you 
because  ye  know  not  the  truth,  but  because  ye  know  it, 
and  that  no  lie  is  of  the  truth.     Who  is  a  liar,  but  he  that 


358  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

tlenieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  ?  He  is  antichrist  that 
denieth  the  Fatlier  and  the  Son.  Whosoever  denieth  the 
Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father.  Let  that,  therefore, 
ahidc  in  you  which  ye  have  heard  (hy  verl)al  instruction) 
from  the  hcf^inning,  (and  which  yo  know  hy  the  anointing 
which  ye  liave  from  the  Holy  One.)  These  things  have 
I  written  unto  you  concerning  them  that  seduce  you." — 
As  to  the  truth  concerning  the  Father  and  the  Son,  from 
which  those  seducers  wish  to  draw  you  aside,  I  need  not 
write  to  you.  "  But  the  anointing  which  ye  have  received 
of  him  abideth  in  you,  (giving  you  the  proper  knowledge 
of  those  things  '  which  ye  have  heard  from  tlio  beginning,') 
and  y«;  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you  (those  tilings.) 
But  as  the  same  anointing  (still)  teacheth  you  of  all  (the) 
things,  (which  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning,)  and  is 
truth,  and  is  no  lie,  (is  a  true  anointing  from  the  Holy 
One,  and  leadeth  you  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,) 
and  (teacheth)  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  (I  trust.)  ye 
shall  (still)  abide  in  him." 

The  argument  thus  deduced  from  Scripture  is  equally 
as  conclusive  with  respect  to  the  modern  C'hristian  world, 
as  with  respect  to  the  primitive  Christian  church.  Now, 
as  in  the  beginning,  "no  one  knoweth  the  things  of  God, 
but  the  S|)irit  of  God,  and  he  to  whom  the  Spirit  of  God 
has  revealed  them."  When  the  Socinians  undertake  to 
prove  the  contrary,  they  are  called  to  prove,  either — that 
there  is  now  an  essential  difference  in  the  faculties  of  the 
human  mind;  that  there  is  some  method  of  obtaining 
the  knowledge  of  spiritual  things,  on  which  the  Scriptures 
are  silent ;  or  that  the  same  knowledge  is  not  now  neces- 
sary for  the  same  purposes.  We  have  learned  from 
themselves  not  to  i)e  surprised  if  any  of  them  should  ven- 
ture  to  undertake  such  a  task  ;  but  the  accomplishment  of 
it  woidd  be  ranked  among  the  greatest  achievements  of 
this  adventurous  age.  The  conqueror  of  this  ditliculty 
vill  i)e  the  man  to  prove  to  the  world,  either — that  eyes 
ond  light  are  not  now  necessary  to  vision, — or  that  the 
most  im|)ortant  atl'airs  of  human  life  may  now  be  trans- 
acted as  well  without  it.  . 

2.  According  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  the  influence  of 
Ihc  S[)irit  of  God  is  necessary  to  make  mankind  holy. 

SVe  shall  not  need  to  review  the  scriptural  arguments 


THE    INFLUENCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  359 

by  which  it  has  been  already  proved  that  the  hearts  of  * 
mankind  are  morally  diseased.  The  tact,  sufficiently 
glaring  in  itself,  we  shall  here  take  tor  grant^.  The 
question  now  is,  By  what  means  is  this  moral  disorder  to 
be  counteracted  and  cured  ?  Without  disregarding  or 
underrating  any  means  which  God  has  seen  good  to  pro- 
vide or  to  enjoin,  we  reply,  By  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  true  reason  that  the  epithet 
holy  is  so  much  more  trequently  applied  to  the  Spirit 
than  to  the  Father  or  the  Son  :  not  because  he  is  more  holy 
than  they  ;  but  because  he  is  the  immediate  author  of  our 
purification,  "  the  Spirit  of  holiness." 

That  the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  such 
as  to  destroy  the  constitutional  freedom  of  the  human 
mind,  suspend  its  volitions,  irresistibly  direct  its  choice, 
or  supersede  the  necessity  of  human  exertions,  is  no  part 
of  our  creed.  We  are  not  disposed  to  make  an  unpro- 
voked attack  on  those  who,  on  this  subject,  may  see  rea- 
son to  difl'er  from  us ;  but  we  deem  it  necessary  to  guard 
the  truth  against  those  objections  which  are  frequently 
taken  from  an  hypothesis  to  which  we  cannot  subscribe. 
As  we  cannot  vindicate  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace, 
we  must  avoid  meeting  an  antagonist  on  that  ground,  by 
denying  it.  We  do  nut  conceive  of  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit  as  of  a  mechanical  motion,  a  chymical  operation,  or 
a  magical  charm  :  but  as  of  the  agency  of  one  intelligent 
and  tree  Being  upon  another  being  who  is  also  intelligent 
and  free.  We  theretbre  no  more  suppose  th;it  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  of  holiness  does  violence  to  the  human 
will,  than  that  Satan,  by  his  temptations,  forces  men  to 
sin.  In  every  thing  in  which  man  is  accountable,  we 
conceive  he  remains  a  moral  agent ;  or  there  could  be  no 
moral  turpitude  in  his  sin,  or  moral  rectitude  in  his  ser- 
vices. With  the  sacred  writers,  we  suppose  that  the  grace 
of  God  may  possibly  be  received  in  vain,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  may  be  resisted,  may  be  grieved,  or  may  even  be 
quenched ;  and  that  some  have  done  despite  to  the  Spirit 
of  grace. 

This  being  premised,  we  proceed  to  examine  whether, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  all  the  holiness  and  righteous- 
ness of  human  nature  be  not  imputed  to  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 


S66 


THE    INFLITENCE    OF  THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


(1.)  The  first  step  which  a  sinner  can  take  toward 
hohness  is  repentance.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  repent- 
ance is  sorrow  for  sin,  producing  sincere  desires  and  strong 
resolutions  to  amend  :  a  steadfast  purpose  to  "  cease  to 
do  evil,  and  learn  to  do  well."  That  this  is  an  act  of  the 
human  will  is  undeniable.  Hence  "  God  commandeth 
all  men  everywhere  to  repent,"  Acts  xvii,  30.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  it  is  the  gift  of  God: — "Him  hath 
God  exalted  with  his  right  hand,  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness 
of  sins,"  Acts  v,  31.  When,  therefore,  the  apostks  heard 
of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and  his  house.  "  they 
glorified  God,  saying.  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  Gentiles 
granted  repentance  unto  life,"  Ads  xi,  18.  Had  it  been 
said  that  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  give  repent- 
ance,  the  Socinians  could  liave  given  the  subject  an  easy 
turn,  by  stating  that  Jesus  Christ  came  to  preach  the  doc- 
trine  of  repentance.  But  the  case  before  us  is  a  little 
difierent  from  this.  That  Jesus  Christ  "  came  to  call 
sinners  to  repentance,"  is  a  great  truth  ;  but  it  is  equally 
a  truth  that  he  is  "  exalted  to  give  repentance."  In  what 
sense,  then,  is  that  repentance  given  ? 

Before  a  sinner  can  properly  repent,  he  must  know  him- 
self to  be  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God  :  he  must  be  con- 
vinced that  in  God's  account  "sin  is  exceeding  sinful:" 
he  must  be  deeply  impressed  with  the  thought  that  "  the 
end  of  these  things  is  death."  But  these  are  among 
those  spiritual  truths,  the  pro|)er,  practical  knowledge  of 
which  we  iiave  already  seen  can  be  received  only  in  the 
light  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Hence  Jesus  Christ,  when  he 
promised  lo  send  the  Comforter  to  his  disciples,  said, 
"When  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  (or  convince)  the 
world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment," 
John  xvi,  8. 

(2.)  The  next  stop  which  a  sinner  must  take  in  order 
to  his  salvation,  is  to  come  to  Christ.  Hence  our  Ix)rd, 
addressing  hin)self  to  penitent  sinners,  says,  "  Come  unto 
me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest,"  Matt,  xii,  28»  But  has  he  not  said  also, 
"  No  num  can  come  to  in(>,  exce|)t  the  Father,  who  hath 
.sent  mc,  draw  him  ?"  John  vi,  44.  Now.  in  order  to 
draw  us  to  the  Son,  the  Son   must  be   revealed   to    us  : 


THE    INFUIE^fCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  861 

revealed  to  us  in  the  attractive  charms  of  his  benevolent 
character  as  the  Friend  and  Saviour  of  mankind,  who 
"  rcceiveth  sinners."  The  Father,  therefore,  reveals  the 
Son.  "  It  pleased  God,  (says  St.  Paul,)  who  called  me 
by  his  grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,"  Gal.  i,  15,  16. — 
For  this  purpose  he  must  "  give  to  the  sinner  an  under- 
standing to  know  him  that  is  true,"  1  John  v,  20.  The 
Father  must  give  to  him  the  Spirit  of  truth,  whereby 
Christ  has  promised  to  manifest  himself  to  him,  that  he 
may  see  Him  whom  the  world  cannot  see.  Compare  John 
xiv,  16,  19,  21,  &c.  To  come  to  Christ,  is  practically  to 
believe  on  him.  "  He  that  cometh  to  me,  shall  never  hun- 
ger, (says  he ;)  and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never 
thirst,"  John  vi,  35.  But  this  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  : 
"  To  you  it  is  given  to  believe  on  him,"  Phil,  i,  29.  And 
it  is  given  by  a  divine  operation,  and  is  therefore  called, 
"  a  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,"  Col.  ii,  12% 

(3.)  The  immediate  object  of  a  sinner's  coming  to 
Jesus  Christ  is  that  through  him  he  may  come  to  the  Fa- 
ther :  "  He  is  able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that 
come  to  God  by  him,"  Heb.  vii,  25.  "  I  am  the  way, 
and  the  truth,  and  the  life.  No  man  cometh  to  the  Father 
but  by  me,"  John  xiv,  6.  We  have  just  seen  that  to 
come  to  Christ,  is  to  believe  in  him.  But  a  sinner  be- 
lieves  in  Christ,  that  he  may  believe  in  God.  He  trusts 
in  the  redeeming  love  of  the  Son,  that  he  may  trust  in  the 
pardoning  love  of  the  Father  :  "  If  ye  call  on  the  Father, 
who,  without  respect  of  persons,  judgeth  according  to 
every  man's  work,  pass  the  time  of  your  sojourning  in 
fear ;  forasmuch  as  ye  knov/  that  ye  were  redeemed 
with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  who  was  manifest  in 
tliese  last  times  for  you  who  by  him  do  believe  in  God 
that  raised  him  up  from  the  dead  and  gave  him  glory,  that 
your  faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God,"  1  Pet.  i,  17-21. 
Here,  then,  we  are  to  consider,  [1.]  that  the  Father  is 
revealed  to  us  in  the  Son,  by  the  Spirit :  "  At  that  day," 
says  our  Lord,  (when  the  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  truth 
is  come,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever,)  "  ye  shall 
know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  you  in  me,  and  I  in 
you,"  compare  John  xiv,  16-20  :  [2.]  that  this  is  in- 
volved in  our  coming  to  the  Father  by  him,  and  that  they 
are  connected  by  our  Lord,  if  not  identified  :  "  No  man 
31 


362  THE  ik/luence  of  the  holy  spirit. 

(says  he)  cometh  unto  the  Father  jjut  by  me.  If  ye  had 
known  me,  ye  should  have  known  my  Father  also ;  and 
from  henceforth  ye  know  him  and  have  seen  him,"  John 
xiv,  6,  7  :  [3.]  that  a  sinner  is  encouraged  to  come  to  the 
Father  by  beholding  him  in  the  Son,  and  to  depend  on  his 
forgiving  love  by  knowing  the  redeeming  love  of  the 
Saviour.  All  this  is  comprehended  in  one  sentence  by  the 
apostle,  who  says,  "  Through  him  we  have  an  access  by 
one  Spirit  unto  the  Father,"  Eph.  ii,  18. 

(4.)  The  result  of  a  sinner's  coming  to  God  by  Jesus 
Christ  is  his  regeneration.  Hence  the  Apostle  Peter, 
having  addressed  the  Christians  of  his  time  as  ''  through 
Christ  believing  in  (j!od,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
and  gave  him  glory,  that  their  faith  and  hope  might  be 
in  God," — subjoins  :  "  seeing  yc  have  purified  yeur  souls 
in  obeying  the  truth  through  the  Spirit ;  being  born  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word 
of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever,"  1  Pet.  i,  22, 
23.  So  the  Evangelist  John  states  that  "  to  as  many  as 
received  him  ('  the  Word  of  God,'  who,  '  full  of  grace 
and  truth,'  hath  'declared  the  Father;')  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  be- 
lieve on  his  name  :  which  were  born  (not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but)  of  God," 
John  i,  1,  12-14,  18. 

From  the  language  of  St.  Peter  it  is  obvious  that,  in  his 
opinion,  to  be  born  again  is  synonymous  with  "  having 
purified  our  souls."  In  the  conversation  of  our  Lord 
with  Nicodemus,  the  same  idea  is  couched  under  similar 
terms.  "  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Verily,  verily,  I  s!Ty  unto 
thee,  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  (lod.  Nicodemus  sjiith  unto  him.  How  can  a 
man  be  born  when  he  is  old?  ('an  lie  enter  a  second  time 
into  his  mother's  womb  and  be  born1  Jesus  answered, 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  bom  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  tlu"  kingdom 
of  God.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  ;  ami  that 
which  is  born  of  tlu-  Spirit,  is  spirit,"  John  iii,  3-6.  From 
;this  passage  we  gather,  [1.]  That  the  new  hirlh  is  a  neces- 
sary preparation  for  a  man's  entrance  iiito  (lie  kingdom  of 
God.  [2.]  'I'hat  it  is  a  jireparation  necessary  for  every 
one  born  of  a  woman.     [3.]  That  it  is  a  change  winch  our 


THE    INFLUEI^CE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  363 

Lord  here  calls  being  made  spirit,  in  opposition  to  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  and  is  flesh.  These  phrases 
we  interpret  as  relating  to  the  moral  disposition  of  the 
mind.  To  be  flesh,  in  scriptural  language,  is  to  be  car- 
nally minded  :  to  be  spirit,  is  to  be  spiritually  mimded. 
In  this  sense  the  Apostle  Paul  uses  these  and  similar  terms, 
as  in  the  following  passage  :  "  They  that  are  after  the 
flesh  do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh ;  but  they  that  are 
at'ter  the  Spirit  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  For  to  be  carnally 
minded  is  death  ;  but  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and 
peace.  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God ; 
for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can 
be."  It  therefore  renders  a  man  unfit  for  the  kingdom 
of  God.  "  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot 
please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spi- 
rit,"  Rom.  viii,  5-9. 

But  whatever  be  the  nature  of  the  new  birth,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  efficient  cause  of 
it.  Thus  our  Lord  says,  *•  Except  a  man  be  born  of  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  That 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.''  "  So  every  one 
that  is  born  of  the  Spirit,"  John  iii,  5,  6,  8.  St.  Peter 
bears  testimony  to  the  same  important  truth  when  he 
says  that  the  believers  to  whom  he  wrote  had  purified 
their  souls  by  obeying  the  truth,  and  thus  were  born  of 
incorruptible  seed,  by  the  word  of  God  ;  for  he  observes 
that  thev  had  obeyed  the  truth  "  through  the  Spirit," 
1  Pet.  i,'22. 

The  idea  which  we  have  of  a  birth  is  that  of  an  intro- 
duction to  natural  life;  to  be  born  again,  and  to  be  born 
of  the  Spirit,  is,  therefore,  to  be  introduced  into  spiritual 
life.  "  To  be  spiritually  minded  is  life,"  Rom.  viii,  6. 
To  begin  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  therefore  to  begin  to 
live.  Hence  St.  Peter,  addressing  himself  to  those  of 
whom  he  speaks  as  "  born  again,"  exhorts  them,  "  As 
new-born  babes  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  that 
ye  may  grow  thereby."  The  sacred  writers,  therefore, 
speak  of  the  same  subject  under  the  idea  of  a  spiritual 
resurrection.  "  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  he  hath 
quickened  us  together  with  Christ,"  Eph.  ii,  5.  "  And 
you,  being  dead  in  your  sins,  hath  he  quickened  together 
with  him,"  Col.  ii,  13.     But  this  resurrection  is  effected 


364  TUE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

by  the  Spirit.  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,"  John 
vi,  23.  "  If  any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  he  is 
none  of  his.  And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead, 
because  of  sin  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life,  (lives,)  because  of 
righteousness,"  Rom.  vii,  9,  13.  "  If  we  live  in  (or  by) 
the  Spirit,  (says  St.  Paul  to  the  Galatians,)  let  us  also 
walk  in  (or  by)  the  Spirit,"  Gal.  v,  25. 

As  regeneration  is  the  beginning  of  spiritual  life, 
that  life  is  a  new  life.  "  We  are  buried  with  Christ 
by  baptism  into  death ;  that,  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Fatiier,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life,"  Rom.  vi,  4. 
But  this  renewal  of  life,  in  regeneration,  is  eflected  by  the 
Holy  Spirit :  "  He  saved  us  (says  St.  Paul)  by  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Hoty  Ghost, 
which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour,"  Tit.  iii,  5,  6. 

As  they  who  are  born  of  woman  are  born  in  the  like- 
ness of  their  parents,  so  they  who  are  born  of  God  are 
born  in  his  image.  "  That  which  is  bnrn  of  the  llesh,  is 
flesh;  and  lliat  which  is  born  of  tiie  Spirit  is  spirit."  It 
is  therefore  observed  by  the  Apostle  John  that,  "  if  ye 
know  that  he  is  righteous,  ye  know  that  every  one  which 
doeth  righteousness  (who  is  righteous)  is  born  of  him," 
1  John  ii,  29.  To  be  renewed  in  tlie  spirit  of  one's  mind, 
is  to  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  (rue  holiness,"  Eph.  iv,  23,  24.  This 
moral  image  of  God,  in  which  we  are  renewed,  is  attributed 
to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit.  "  We  all  with  open  face, 
beholding  as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are  changed 
into  the  same  image  from  glory  to  glory,  as  by  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord." 

In  these  passages  it  is  observabl<j  that,  in  whatever 
point  of  light  the  Scriptures  view  tlie  change  of  a  sinner's 
heart,  whether  in  its  nature  or  in  its  cH'ects,  whetiier  the 
allusion  to  human  generation  be  ]>reserved,  laid  aside,  or 
exchanged  tor  some  otlier  mean  of  elucidation,  they  uni- 
formly attribute  it  to  the  S|)irit  ol'God. 

[b.)  I'rom  tlie  time  that  this  eliange  takes  place,  the 
Holy  Spirit  condescends  to  inhal)it  the  lirnrt  which  is 
thus  renewed.  This  is  the  substance  of  what  our  Lord 
graciously    promised  to  his   disciples.     The  Comforter, 


THE   INFLUENCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  367 

the  Colossians  that  they  "  might  be  filled  with  the  know- 
ledge of  the  will  of  God,  in  all  wisdom,  and  spiritual 
understanding  :  that  they  might  walk  worthy  of  thie  Lord 
unto  all  pleasing,  being  fruitful  in  every  good  work,"  Col. 
i,  10.  It  is  certain,  indeed,  that  God  has  declared  his 
will  by  his  holy  law.  It  is  equally  certain  that  God  sees 
it  necessary,  and  that  he  has  graciously  promised  to  "  put 
his  law  into  our  mind,"  Heb.  viii,  10,  or  understanding. 
This  he  does  by  his  Spirit  :  "  Ye  are  manifestly  declared 
to  be  the  epistle  of  Christ  ministered  by  us,  written  not 
■with  ink,  but  with  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God  :  not  in 
tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart,"  2  Cor. 
iii,  3.  In  other  words  :  it  is  necessary  that  God  should 
"  guide  us  with  his  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  us  to 
glory,"  Psa.  l.xxiii,  24.  And  for  this  purpose  "  his  Spirit 
is  good,  and  leads  into  the  land  of  uprightness,"  Psalm 
cxliii,  10.  This  guidance  of  the  Spirit  is  granted  to  all 
his  children  ;  for  "  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God,"  Rom.  viii,  14. 

[2.]  The  next  thing  essential  to  holy  obedience  is  a 
disposition  to  do  the  will  of  God  :  "  Incline  my  heart  unto 
tliy  testimonies,  (said  David,)  and  not  to  covetousness," 
Psalm  cxix,  36.  St.  Paul  prayed  that  the  Philippians 
might  "  approve  things  that  are  excellent ;  that  they  might 
be  sincere  and  without  offence  till  the  day  of  Christ,  being 
filled  with  the  fruits  of  righteousness,"  Phil,  i,  10,  11. — 
For  this  purpose  he  informs  them,  "  It  is  God  which 
worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his  good  plea- 
sure,"  Phil,  ii,  13.  And  for  this  purpose  God  promises 
not  only  to  "  put  his  law  in  our  mind,"  that  we  may  know 
it,  but  to  "  write  it  on  our  heart,"  Heb.  vii,  10,  that  we  may 
love  it.  But  this  is  effected  by  the  Spirit :  "  for  as  the 
flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  lusteth  (desireth) 
against  the  flesh  :  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the 
other  ;  so  that  ^in  tvoititc,  ye  may  not  do  the  things  that 
ye  (otherwise)  would,"  Gal.  v,  17. 

[3.]  It  is  also  necessary  to  actual  obedience  that  we  be 
strengthened  to  do  the  will  of  God  :  "  Without  me,"  says 
Jesus  Christ,  "  ye  can  do  nothing,"  John  xv,  5.  But, 
on  the*other  hand,  "  I  can  do  all  things,"  said  St.  Paul, 
"through  Christ  which  strengtheneth  me,"  Phil,  iv,  13. 
It  is  by  the  Spirit,  however,  that  Jesus  Christ  strengthen- 


368  THE    INFLrEKCE  OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

eth  his  followers  :  "  Likewise  tlie  Spirit  also  helpeth  our 
infirmities,"  Rom.  viii,  26.  "  For  tliis  cause  I  bow  my 
knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  tliat  he 
ivould  grant  unto  you  to  be  strengthened  witii  might  by 
his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man,"  Epli.  iii,  14,  16. 

In  this  way  the  promise  of  God  to  his  people,  by  the 
Prophet  Ezckiel,  is  fulfilled  :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  yc  shall  be  clean  from  all  your 
Althiness,  and  from  all  yoiir  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A 
new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I 
put  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out 
of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  llosh.  And 
I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in 
my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do 
them,"  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25-27. 

Ifwc  inquire  into  the  source  of  every  grace  which  forms 
the  Christian  character,  we  shall  find  that  they  all  take 
their  rise  from  these  combinations  of  his  various  influ- 
ence. Thus  piety,  morality,  and  virtue  owe  to  him  their 
very  existence. 

[1.]  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  source  of  all  genuine  piety. 
What  is  piety  but  sincere  and  supreme  love  to  jGod  ? 
"This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment  :  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  \\  ith  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  lliy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind,"  Matt,  xxii,  37,  3'^. 

But  love  to  God  is  one  of  God's  greatest  gifts.  "The 
Lord  directs  our  hearts  into  the  love  of  God,"  2  Thess. 
iii,  5.  He  has  therefore  graciously  promised  (hat  he  will 
"circumciseour  heart,  to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our 
heart,  and  with  all  our  soul,  that  we  may  live,"  Deut.  xxx,  6. 
This  great  gift  God  bestows  by  the  operation  of  his  Holy 
Spirit  :  "  (ioil  hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear  ,'tbut  of 
power,  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind,"  iTim.  i,  7  :  i.  e.,  the 
Spirit  by  which  power,  and  love,  and  sobriety  are  given  to 
us,  or  Avrought  in  us.  "I  bow  niv  knees  to  the  l\ilher 
of  our  Lord  .lesus  Christ,  that  he  would  grant  unto  you 
to  be  strengthened  by  his  Spirit's  might  in  the  inner  nmn, 
that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  lailh,  that  ye 
being  rooted  and  grounded  inlove,"  A:c.,  Fph.  iii,  14,  17. 
Again  :. "  Who  declarctli  luito  us  your  love  in  the  Spirit," 
Col.  i,  8. 

[2.]    The  Holy  Spirit    is    the  source   of  all  genuine 


THE    INFLTTENCE    OF  THE    HOLY   SPIRIT.  36^ 

said  he,  "  is  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you,"  John  xiv,  17. 
This  promise  was  fulfilled  even  in  private  Christians. 
"  They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God  ;'^says  St. 
Paul ;)  but  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so 
be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any  man 
have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his,"  Rom. 
viii,  8,  9.  Every  real  Christian  (and  such  is  every  regene- 
rate person)  has  therefore  the  Spirit  of  God  within  him. 
Hence  St.  Paul,  addressing  the  Corinthians,  speaks  on 
this  subject  with  the  utmost  confidence,  and  in  a  manner 
that  admits  of  no  exception  :  "  What !  know  ye  not  that 
your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  in 
you,  which  ye  have  of  God  ?"  1  Cor.  vi,  19.  And  again  : 
"  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ?"  1  Cor.  iii,  16.  The 
same  apostle  has  another  passage  which  requires  an  appli- 
tion  only  to  private  Christians,  and  extends  to  all  suc- 
ceeding ages.  "  Through  him  (Christ)  we  both  (Jews 
and  Gentiles)  have  an  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the 
Father.  Now,  therefore,  ye  (Gentiles)  are  no  more 
strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens  with  the 
saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God  ;  and  are  built  upon 
the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone  ;  in  whom  all  the 
building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  unto  a  holy  tem- 
ple in  the  Lord  :  in  whom  ye  also  are  budded  together  for 
a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit,"  Eph.  ii,  18-22. 
In  this  passage  the  reader  will  perceive,  [1.]  That  a  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  the  apostles  and  prophets  on  the 
one  part,  and  the  private  Christians  who  were  builded  on 
them,  on  the  other  part.  [2.]  That  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles are  included  :  the  former  as  built  upon  the  prophets  ; 
the  latter  upon  the  apostles.  [3.]  That  all  these  are  said 
to  be  "a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit."  [4.]  And 
that  this  habitation  of  God  is  said  to  "  grow  unto  a  holy 
temple  in  the  Lord  :"  an  expression  which  at  once  implies 
a  continual  accession  of  members  to  the  Christian  church, 
which  still  continues  to  be  the  habitation  of  God,  and  that 
it  is  always  sanctified  by  his  immediate  presence. 

(G.)-«Tliis  leads  us   to  observe  that   to  the  indwelling 
Spirit  the  sanctification  of  the  saints,  whether  initial  or 
complete,  is  uniformly  attributed.     It  is  this,  according  to 
31* 


366  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY  SPIRIT. 

the  passage  which  we  have  just  now  examined,  that  makes 
the  "  liabitation  of  God"  "  grow  unto  a  holy  temple  in  the 
Lord."  With  this  the  Scriptures  in  general  accord  : 
"  Such  (says  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians)  were  some  of 
you  :  but  yc  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are 
justified,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spi- 
rit of  our  God,"  1  Cor.  vi,  11.  To  the  Thessalonians  he 
writes,  "  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  sal- 
vation through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of 
the  truth,"  2  Thess.  ii,  13.  And  to  the  Romans  bespeaks 
of  himself  as  "  the  minister  of  Jesus  Ciirist  to  the  Gentiles, 
ministering  the  gospel  of  God,  that  the  offering  up  of  the 
Gentiles  might  be  acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  Rom.  xv,  16.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  uses  subordinate  means  for  our  sanctification. 
Hence  the  Corinthians  are  exhorted  to  "  cleanse  them- 
selves from  all  filtliiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  per- 
fecting holiness  in  the  fear  of  God."  But  it  is  equally 
true  that  this  exhortation  is  founded  on  the  promises  of 
God  :  "  Having  therefore  these  promises,  dearly  beloved, 
let  us  cleanse  ourselves,"  &c.,  2  Cor.  vii,  1.  Now,  one 
of  the  promises  to  which  St.  Paul  alludes,  according  to 
the  preceding  chapter,  is,  "  Ye  are  the  temple  of  the  liv- 
ing God ;  as  God  hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them  and 
walk  in  them,"  2  Cor.  vi,  16. 

(7.)  From  the  sanctification  which,  in  all  its  various 
stages,  is  the  efiect  of  our  being  a  habitation  of  God 
through  the  Spirit,  all  holy  and  acceptable  obedience 
flows  :  "  A  good  man,  out  of  (this)  good  treasure  of  his 
heart,  bringelh  fortii  good  things."  "  The  tree  is  (hereby) 
made  good,  and  conse(|ueiitly  produces  good  fruit,"  Matt, 
xii,  33,  35.  The  A|>ostlc  Peter,  therefore,  s|H'alvs  of  his 
believing  brethren  in  the  Lord  as  being  "  elect  according 
to  the  foreknowledge  of  (iod  the  Father,  through  sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience,"  1  Pet.  i,  2.  For 
this  reason  Christian  obedience  is.  bv  that  apostle,  attri- 
buted, in  the  very  same  cliapter,  to  the  same  S|)irit  :  "  Ye 
have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the 
Spirit,"  1  Pet.  i,  22.  But  this  subject  requires  a  more 
extended  investigation. 

[1.]  The  first  thing  requisite  to  all  holy  obedience  is 
the  knowledge  of  our  duty.     Hence  St.  Paul  prayed  for 


THE    INFLUEiSCE    OF  THE    HOLY    SPIKIT.  3G9 

morality.  If  love  to  God  be  the  soul  of  piety,  love  to 
mankind  is  the  soul  of  sincerity,  veracity,  fidelity,  equity, 
mercy,  benevolence,  and  beneficence  to  man.  "JJ  there 
be  any  other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in 
this  saying,  namely.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
self.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his^eighbour  :  therefore 
love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  Rom.  xiii,  9,  10.  But 
this  commandment  is  obeyed  only  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  "  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying 
the  truth  through  the  Spirit,  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the 
brethren,  see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart 
fervently,"  1  Pet.  i,  22.  And  as  love  to  our  neighbour  is 
the  eftect  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  so  all  veracity, 
justice,  and  benevolence,  which  are  the  inseparable  com- 
panions of  love,  spring  from  the  same  source  :  "  for  the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in  all  goodness,  and  righteousness, 
and  truth,"  Eph.  v,  9. 

[3.]  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  source  of  all  virtue. 
Temperance,  sobriety,  chastity,  deadneas  to  the  world, 
and  to  all  the  means  of  sensual  gratification  which  it 
afTords,  with  the  subjugation  of  every  opposite  passion, 
are  the  virtues  of  a  Christian.  "  Risen  with  Christ,"  he 
is  called  to  "  seek  those  things  which  are  above,  where 
Christ  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  ;"  to  "  set  his 
affections  on  things  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth," 
and  to  "  mortify  his  members  which  are  upon  the  earth  ; 
fornication,  uncleanncss,  inordinate  affection,  evil  concu- 
piscence, and  covetousness,  which  is  idolatry,"  Cor.  iii,  1, 
2,  5.  But  "  the  works  of  the  flesh,  Avhich  are  these, 
adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idola- 
try, witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife, 
seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revel- 
lings,  and  such  like,  are  diametrically  opposite  to  these 
virtues,"  Gal.  v,  19-^21.  They  (therefore)  who  are 
Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh,  with  the  affections  and 
lusts,"  Gal.  v.  24,  by  "  walking  in  the  Spirit,  that  they 
may  not  fulfil  the  lust  of  theilesh,"  Gal.  v,  16.  "  Through 
the  Spirit  they  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body  that  they  may 
live,"  Rom.  viii,  13. 

In  a  word  :  as  "  the  grace  of  God  which  bringeth  sal- 
vation  "leacheth  all  men  that,  denying  ungodliness  and 
worldly  lusts,  they  should  live  soberly,  and  righteously,  and 


370  THE    INFLUENCE    OF  THE  HOLY    SPIRIT. 

godly  in  this  present  world,"  all  these  are  produced  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  "The  trait  of  the  Spirit  is  lovo,  joy, 
peace,  (the  graces  of  piety,)  long  suliering,  gentleness, 
goodness,  -n-i-tr,  fidelity,  (llie  duties  of  morality,)  meek- 
ness, temperance,"  (the  government  of  our  mental  pas- 
sions, and  of  our  bodily  appetites  or  personal  virtue.) 

3.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  necessary  to  the  hap- 
piness of  a  Christian. 

It  perhaps  will  not  be  denied  that  every  truly  good  man 
is  a  happy  man,  or  that  he  who  is  a  Christian  in  heart  and 
deportment  enjoys  the  proper  comforts  of  Christianity. 
Our  Lord  has  pronounced  every  stage  of  true  religion 
blessed,  or  happy  :  not  excepting  that  of  "  the  poor  in 
spirit,"  of  the  "  mournful,"  of  those  that  "  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness,"  or  of  those  who  are  "persecuted 
for  righteousness'  sake."  And  God  has  declared  that  the 
ways  of  wisdom  "  are  ways  of  pleasantness,  that  all  her 
paths  are  peace :  and  that  happy  is  every  one  that  retaineth 
her,"  Prov.  iii,  17.  But  all  the  happiness  of  religion 
proceeds  from  the  Comforter,  and  depends  on  our  "  walk- 
ing in  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Acts  ix,  31. 

(1.)  The  first  and  most  essential  ingredient  in  real 
happiness  is  inward  peace.  Not  that  insensibility,  care- 
lessness, and  ease  which  characterize  tliose  wiio  sleep 
secure  upon  the  verge  of  hell,  and  who  say  to  themselves, 
"  Peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace  ;"  but  the  calm 
tranquillity  of  a  mind  perfectly  awake  to  its  real  situation  : 
•*•  the  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  all  understanding,  keep- 
ing the  heart  and  mind  through  Christ  Jesus,"  Pliil.  iv,  7. 
Of  this  inward  serenity,  every  true  follower  of  Christ  is, 
in  a  greater  or  less  measure,  a  partaker.  "Being  justi- 
fied by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  v,  1.  -"Peace,"  said  Jesus  Christ  to 
his  disciples,  "  I  leave  with  you,  mv  peace  I  give  unto 
you  ;  not  as  the  world  giveth  (ileceitful,  scanty,  unstable) 
give  I  unto  you,"  John  xiv,  27. 

'I'liis  peace,  wc  have  already  seen,  is  one  of  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit.  And  what  but  the  Spirit  could  communicate 
it  ?  Tiie  deceiver  of  mankind  may  administer  opiates  to  a 
guilty  conscience,  and  sing  the  siren  song  to  an  un- 
awakened  sinner,  whom  he  rocks  in  the  cradle  of  carnal 
security,  or  the  sinner  may  suy  to  himself,  "  I  shall  have 


THE    IKFLUENtE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  371 

peace,  though  I  walk  after  the  imagination  of  my  heart, 
adding  drunkenness  to  thirst  ;"  none,  however,  can  calm 
his  yet  awakened  conscience  but  lie  that  says^o  the 
raging  waves  of  the  sea,  "  Be  still !  and  there  is  a  great 
calm."  None  but  he  can  enable  us  to  look  God  in  the 
face,  and  to  take  a  view  of 

That  undiscover'd  country  from  whose  bourne 
No  traveller  returns  ; 

and  vet  to  sing,  "  O  Lord,  I  will  praise  thee  ;  though  thou 
wast'angry  with  me,  thine  anger  is  turned  away,  and  thou 
comfortest  me,"  Isa.  xii,  1.  Nothing  could  produce  this, 
but  wliat  tiie  apostle  calls  "  the  love  of  God  (the  pardoning, 
paternal  love  of  God)  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  whicli  is  given  unto  us,"  Rom.  v,  5. 

(2.)  But  Christianity  affords  not  merely  a  negative 
consolation;  it  is  full  of  positive  and  present  enjoyment. 
All  the  wicked  are  "  without  God  in  the  world."  To 
return  to  their  duty  is  to  "  return  unto  the  Lord,"  to 
"draw  nigh  unto  God,"  to  "  seek  the  Lord  while  he  may 
be  found."  But  this  return  to  their  duty  is  followed  by  a 
restoration  to  felicity.  "Return  unto  me,  and  I  will 
return  unto  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,"  Mai.  iii,  7. 
"  Draw  nigh  unto  God,  and  he  will  draw  nigh  unto  you," 
James  iv,  8.  "Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  find  nve  when  ye 
shall  search  for  me  with  all  your  heart,"  Jer.  xxix,  13. 
This  done,  they  say  with  the  psalmist,  "The  Lord 
is  the  portion  of  mine  inheritance,  and  of  my  cup," 
Psalm  xvi,  5.  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  and 
there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  beside  thee,"  Psalm 
Ixxiii,  25. 

In  possession  of  such  a  portion,  a  Christian  is  unspeak- 
ably  happy. 

When  God  is  mine,  and  I  am  his, 

or  paradise  possess'd 
I  taste  unuuerable  bliss 

And  everlasting  rest. 

He  "joys  in  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
whom  he  has  now  received  the  reconciliation,"  Rom. 
V,  11.  He  cannot,  however,  rejoice  in  God  unless  he 
know  that  God  is  his  ;  that  he  is  graciously  with  him,  and 
in  hinfi.     And  how  does  he  know  this  1     As  the  shechinah 


37*2  THE    INFLUENCE    OP    THK    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

was  the  symbol  of  the  presence  of  God  in  his  holy  temple, 
Avhen  he  dwells  in  men  by  liis  Holy  Spirit,  he  by  that 
Spirit  certifies  them  of  his  presence,  and  reveals  his  glory. 
"  Hereby  (says  St.  John)  we  know  that  he  abideth  in  us, 
by  the  Spirit  which  h«  hath  given  us,"  1  John  iii,  24. 
"1  will  pray  the  Father,  (said  our  Lord,)  and  he  shall 
give  you  another  Comforter,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  : 
he  shall  be  in  you.  At  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I 
am  in  my  Father,  and  you  in  me,  and  I  in  you,"  John 
xiv,  16-20. 

(3.)  Religion  has  its  hopes  as  well  as  its  enjoyments. 
The  Cliristian's  hope  is  full  of  immortality  :  being  "  as 
an  anchor  of  the  soul,  both  sure  and  steadfast,  entering 
into  that  within  the  veil,  whither  the  forerunner  is  for  us 
entered,"  Heb.  vi,  19,  20.  It  is  a  hope  of  future  glory. 
He  is  "  begotten  again  to  a  lively  hope  of  an  inheritance, 
incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  aw  ay,  reserved 
in  heaven  for  him,''  1  Pet.  i,  3,  4.  But  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  the  source  of  this  hope.  Hence  that  prayer  of  the 
apostle  :  "  Now  the  God  of  hope  fill  you  w  ith  all  joy  and 
peace  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope,  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Rom.  xv,  13. 

The  more  closely  we  examine  this  subject,  the  more 
reason  we  shall  see  to  attribute  the  Christian  hope  to  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

[1.]  The  first  thing  necessary  to  the  hope  of  glory  is 
a  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  value  of  that  glory.  But 
this  knowledge  is  given  by  the  illuminating  Spirit : — •*  I 
cease  not,"  says  St.  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  •'  to  make 
mention  of  you  in  my  prayers  ;  that  the  God  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  may  give  unto  you  the 
Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him  : 
the  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlightened  ;  that 
ve  may  know  what  is  the  hope  of  your  calling,  and  what 
the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance  in  the  saints," 
Epli.  i,  16-18. 

['2.1  We  cannot  reasonaI)Iy  hope  to  participate  in  this 
inheritance  unless  we  be  assured  of  nur  title  to  it.  As  an 
inheritance  it  is  iield  in  reversion  for  tho.^e  who  are  chil- 
dren and  heirs.  How  then  does  a  n)an  ascertain  that  he 
is  "  no  more  a  servant,  but  a  son  ;  and  if  a  son,  then  an 
Tieir  of  God  through  Christ?"  Gal.  iv,  7.     If  the  Scrip. 


THE    INFLUENOE    OF   THE    HOLT    SPIRIT.  373 

tural  account  be  just,  we  receive  this  assurance  from  the 
Spirit :  "  God  sends  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our 
hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father,"  Gal.  iv,  6.  AnjL  when 
"  we  have  received,  not  the  spirit  of  bondage  unto  fear, 
but  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father, 
the  self-same  Spirit,  avro  -o  nvevfia,  beareth  witness  with 
our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God :  and  if  chil- 
dren, then  heirs ;  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ ;  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  be 
also  glorified  together,"  Rom.  viii,  ^7. 

[3.]  Whether  a  pledge  and  foretaste  of  future  glory  is 
or  is  not  essential  to  the  hope  of  it,  it  is  a  benefit  which 
God  bestows  to  increase  the  earnestness  of  a  man's  desire 
for  it,  and  to  confirm  his  expectation.  Such,  therefore, 
is  the  blessing  which  is  enjoyed  by  a  Christian,  and  such 
are  its  effects.  But  this  also  is  of  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  :  "  We  know  that  if  our  earthly  house  of 
this  tabernacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  of  God, 
a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens. 
For  in  this  we  groan,  earnestly  desiring  to  be  clothed 
upon  with  our  house  which  is  from  heaven — that  mor- 
tality might  be  swallowed  up  of  life.  Now  he  that  hath 
wrought  us  for  the  self-same  thing  is  God,  who  also 
hath  given  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit.  Therefore  we  are 
always  confident,  knowing  that  while  we  are  at  home  in  the 
body  we  are  absent,  from  the  Lord  :  we  are  confident,  I 
say,  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to 
be  present  with  the  Lord,"  2  Cor.  v,  1-8.  Hence  St, 
Paul  says  to  the  Ephesians,  "  We  (Jews)  should  be  to 
the  praise  of  his  glory,  who  first  trusted  in  Christ,  in 
whom  ye  (Gentilas)  also  (trusted,)  after  that  ye  heard  the 
word  of  truth,  the  gospel  of  your  salvation  :  in  whom,  also, 
after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spi- 
rit of  promise,  (that  Holy  Spirit  which  was  promised,) 
which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance,  until  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  purchased  possession,  unto  the  praise  of  his 
glory."  He,  therefore,  who  can  say  with  the  psalmist, 
"  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  and  there  is  none 
upon  earth  that  I  desire  beside  thee,"  can  subjoin  with 
him,  "  My  heart  and  my  flesh  faileth,  but  God  is  the 
fitrengtlt  of  my  heart,  and  my  portion  for  ever." 

(4.)  Not  only  the  fruition,  but  the  hope  of  a  Christian 
32 


374  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

is  a  source  of  joy  :  "  We  rejoice,"  eays  St.  Paul,  "  in 
hope  of  the  glory  of  God,"  Rom.  v,  2.  He  exiiorts  the 
Romans  to  be  "  rejoicing  in  liope,"  Rom.  xii,  12.  St. 
Peter  addresses  the  scattered  strangers,  as  "  begotten 
again  unto  a  Uvely  hope  to  an  inheritance  incorrupti- 
ble, and  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away, — wlicre- 
in,"  he  says,  "  ye  greatly  rejoice,"  1  Peter  i,  3,  4,  6. 
This  joy,  in  connection  with  the  joy  of  present  frui- 
tion,  he  represents  as  unutterable  and  glorious  :  "  That 
the  trial  of  your  faith  might  be  found  unto  praise,  and 
honour,  and  glory,  at  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ : 
whom,  having  not  seen,  ye  love  ;  in  whom,  though  now 
ye  see  him  not,  yet  believing,  ye  rejoice  with  joy  un- 
gpeakablc,  and  full  of  glory,"  1  Pet.  i,  8.  But  wlielher 
the  religious  joy  of  a  Christian  be  common  op  cxtraor- 
dinary,  the  joy  of  hope,  or  of  fruition,  it  is  the  gift  of  God 
by  the  Holy  Spirit :  and  to  that  Spirit  it  is  uniformly  attri- 
buted :  "  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  (we  have  already  seen)  is 
joy,"  &c..  Gal.  v,  22.  "  Ye  became  followers  of  us  and 
of  the  Lord,  (says  St.  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians.)  having 
received  the  word  in  much  affliction,  with  joy  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  1  Tiiess.  i,  6.  And  this  joy  is  one  of  the 
essential  branches  of  Christianity  ;  for  "  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace, 
and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Ron),  xiv,  17. 

To  give  the  reader  a  clew  to  the  doctrine  of  divine 
influence,  to  guide  him  through  the  intricacies  of  the 
multiplied  passages  which  we  have  quoted,  and  to  show 
that  in  every  gradation  of  religion  the  work  of  human  sal- 
vation  is  '•  begun,  continued,  and  ended"  in  tlie  Holy  Spi- 
rit, we  have  divided  our  subject  into  three  distinct  heads, 
under  which  the  dilferent  texts  are  arranged.  It  must  not 
be  supposed  that  the  divine  operations  are  always  divided 
according  to  these  artificial  distinctions.  The  powers  of 
the  human  mind  have  a  reciprocal  influence,  and  each 
proihotes,  retards,  or  changes  more  or  less,  the  operations 
of  the  other.  Knowledge  contributes  to  the  clioic(>  of  that 
whicli  is  good  ;  and  the  uprightness  of  the  choice  renders 
knowledge  more  easy  of  attainment.  The  holiness  of  the 
hvunan  heart  contributes  to  its  felicity  ;  wliiie  its  felicity 
tends  to  increase  its  holiness.  Again  :  knowledge  con- 
tributes to  our  enjoyment,  while  enjoyment  increases  the 


THE    INFLUEiVCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIKIT.  375 

thirst  for  that  knowledge,  the  happy  influence  of  which  we 
have  felt ;  or,  in  other  words,  happy  experience  makes  us 
wiser.  In  like  manner,  the  various  influenc]^  of  the 
Spirit  co-operate  in  one  great  design,  the  complete  salva- 
tion of  the  souls  of  men  from  ignorance,  sin,  and  wretch- 
edness. We  are  illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  for 
purposes  of  mere  speculation,  but  that  we  may  "  know 
the  truth,  and  that  the  truth  may  make  us  free  :"  or, 
in  other  words,  that  we  may  be  "  sanctified  through 
the  truth."  There  could  be  no  moral,  meliorating  change 
in  the  human  heart,  without  the  infusion  of  moral  prin- 
ciples :  and  those  moral  principles  must  be  apprehended 
by  the  understanding  before  they  can  govern  the  heart. 
As  all  moral  action  is  founded  in  moral  motives,  those 
motives  must  be  more  or  less  distinctly  perceived  before 
we  can  act  under  their  impulse.  There  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  certain  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  "  God 
hath  given  (only)  to  them  that  obey  him."  We  must  be 
*'  rooted  and  grounded  in  love"  before  we  can  be  "  strength- 
ened with  the  Spirit's  might  in  the  inner  man,"  so  as  to 
"  be  able  to  comprehend,  with  all  saints,  the  love  of 
Christ,  which  passcth  knowledge,  that  we  may  be  filled' 
with  all  the  fulness  of  God."  There  is  likewise  a  recipro- 
cal co-operation  of  the  sanctifying  and  the  consolatory 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  gift  of  repentance 
is  necessary  to  prepare  us  for  divine  consolation  :  "Bless- 
ed are  they  that  mourn,  for  they  shall  be  comforted." 
The  gift  of  faith  is  necessary  as  the  immediate  mean 
of  our  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost  to  dwell  within  us  ; 
for  we  receive  it  "  by  the  hearing  of  faith."  On  the 
other  hand  :  when  "  the  love  of  God  to  us  is  shed  abroad 
in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  to  us," 
"  we  love  him  because  he  has  first  loved  us."  Our  filial 
afiection  and  consequent  obedience  are  not  the  causes, 
but  the  effects  of  his  paternal  regard.  "  The  joy  of  the 
Lord  is  our  strength."  But  this  subject,  though  highly 
important  and  interesting,  does  not  belong  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Socinian  controversy,  which,  without  the 
introduction  of  any  thing  extraneous,  has  been  already 
sufticiently  protracted.    To  return  : — 

1.  "The  difliculty  of  explaining  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's 
operation  on  the  human  mind  makes  nothing  against  the 


376  THB    INFLUE>'CE    OF   TUB    HOLY    SPIEIT. 

reality  of  that  operation.  Every  objection  drawn  from 
this  source  makes  equally  against  any  divine  operation, 
whether  physical  or  moral,  miraculous  or  common.  It  is 
enough  for  us  to  know  that  "  God  will  give  his  Holy 
Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him ;"  and  that  it  is  our  duty 
when  we  "  live  in  the  Spirit,  to  walk  also  in  the  Spirit." 
As  to  the  manner  how  that  inestimable  benefit  is  given, 
we  know  nothing :  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listetb, 
and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goetli.  So  is  every 
one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  But  it  is  not  necessary 
that  we  should  understand  it.  We  do  not  see  the  worse, 
because  we  are  unacquainted  with  the  nature  of  liglit,  or 
with  the  manner  of  its  operation.  Our  Ibod  is  not  of 
less  service  to  us  because  we  do  not  know  how  i^  is  assi- 
milated  to  our  constitution,  or  how  it  nourishes  our  bodies* 
Our  not  knowing  how  we  live,  need  not  hinder  our  living 
to  the  best  purpose.  Nor  does  our  ignorance  of  "  the 
way  of  the  Spirit,"  need  to  hinder  our  reception  of  it,  or 
the  accomplishment  of  that  great  purpose  for  which  it  is 
given,  the  salvation  of  our  souls. ' 

2.  Whatever  others  may  pretend,  Socinians  cannot  con- 
sistently urge  that  the  world  is  already  Christianized,  and 
that  it  needs  not,  therefore,  that  divine  iniluencc  whicii  was 
once  necessary  for  the  conversion  of  heathen  idolaters. 
According  to  Dr.  Priestley,  and  his  History  of  Corrup. 
tions,  the  whole  of  simple  Christianity  is  overwhelmed  in 
falsehood,  and  the  Christian  world  is  full  of  idolaters 
who  worship  a  mere  man  instead  of  the  eternal  CJod.  At 
this  rate,  we  are  mere  Christian  heathens,  and  almost 
need  a  restoration  of  the  miracuhnis  gifts  to  elVect  a  refor- 
mation of  the  reformed.  Tlieir  objections  nuist  therefore 
take  anotlier  shape.     They  will  rather  urge: — 

3.  "  That  it  is  naturally  in  the  power  of  man  f  o  do 
the  will  of  God,  must  be  taken  for  granted,  if  we  suppose 
the  moral  government  of  God  to  be  at  all  an  eiiuitable 
one.  He  that  made  man  certainly  knew  what  he  was 
capable  of,  and  would  never  command  him  to  do  what  ho 
had  not  enabled  him  to  perform  ;  so  as  to  propose  to  him 
a  reward  whicli  he  knew  he  could  never  attain,  and  a 
punishment  which  he  knew  he  had  no  |)ower  of  avoiding." 
(Dr,  rricstlcy's  UUt.  of  Cor.  vol.  i,  p.  2b  1.) 


THE    INrLtri^JJCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  377 

That  the  government  of  God  is  equitable,  and  that  he 
does  not  require  any  tiling  \vhich  is  impossible,  is,  and 
must  be  granted.  But,  in  arguing  from  these  jaremises, 
this  Socinian  patriarch  has  made  no  less  than  three 
mistakes : — 

(1.)  He  has  altogether  neglected  to  inquire  what  is 
the  will  of  God  with  respect  to  mankind.  Accordino-  to 
the  New  Testament,  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  we  "  walk 
in  the  light  while  we  have  the  light  ;"  that  we  "  come  to 
the  light  that  our  deeds  may  be  reproved;"  that  we  "be- 
lieve according  to  the  working  of  his  mighty  power ;"  that 
we  "  obey  the  truth  through  the  Spirit ;"  that  v/e  "  by 
the  Spirit  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body  ;  that  we  "  walk  in 
the  Spirit ;"  that  we  bring  forth  "  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit ;" 
and  that  "  we  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God."  Had 
the  doctor  considered  this,  he  would  have  found  it  per- 
fectly unnecessary  to  inquire,  whether  men  have  a  natu- 
ral power  to  do  the  will  of  God  without  the  light,  the 
power,  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for  the  very  language  in  which 
God  has  declared  to  us  his  will,  implies  that  we  have 
naturally  no  such  power. 

(2.)  He  has  neglected  to  make  a  distinction  between 
our  being  naturally  able  to  do  the  will  of  God,  and  our 
being  enabled  to  do  it  by  supernatural  grace.  Man- 
kind may  be  in  fact  able  to  do  the  will  of  God,  and  so 
be  without  excuse,  and  yet  their  ability  may  be  not  natu- 
ral,  but  supernatural.  And  this  we  take  to  be  the  scrip- 
tural truth  :  "  Without  Christ  we  can  do  nothinor,"  John 
XV,  5  ;  but  "  can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which 
strengtheneth  us,"  Phil,  iv,  13.  On  this  ground,  we  grant 
that  the  whole  will  of  God  is  practicable.  But  when  Dr. 
Priestley  so  unceremoniously  "  takes  for  granted,  that  it 
must  be  naturally  in  the  power  of  man  to  do  the  will  of 
God,"  he  takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  which  he  ought 
to  have  proved  ! 

(3.)  He  has  neglected  to  distinguish  between  a  physi- 
cal  and  a  moral  inability.  A  man  may  be  supposed  to 
be  physically  able  to  "  deny  himself;"  to  "crucify  the 
flesh  with  the  passions  and  desires  ;"  to  "  mortify  the 
deeds  of  the  body ;"  to  renounce  the  world  ;  or  even  to 
love  Gfod ;  yet  if  he  be  morally  unable  to  do  these  things, 
if  he  have  an  aversion  to  them,  all  his  physical  ability 
32* 


379  THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

will  avail  nothing.  But  this  moral  inability  is  that  for 
which  we  particularly  contend.  It  is  a  contradiction  in 
terms  to  say  that  man  has  a  natural  inclination  to  deny 
himself.  It  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  he  is  natunilly  in- 
clined to  resist  his  natural  inclination.  The  carnal  mind 
may  be  changed  to  a  spiritual  mind ;  and,  therefore,  it 
it  has  a  physical  capacity  to  love  God  and  to  obey  his 
law.  But  so  long  as  it  is  a  carnal  mind,  it  is  enmity  to 
God,  and  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  neither  indeed  can  be. 
Obedience,  in  this  state,  is  morally  impossible.  The  mind 
of  man  may  be  physically  free  in  its  volitions;  yet,  while 
•'  the  flesh  lusteth  (causeth  desires)  against  the  Spirit," 
unless  those  desires  be  counteracted  by  "  the  Spirit,  which 
iusteth  (causes  desires)  against  the  flesh,"  the  man  is  in 
moral  bondage,  and  will  still  "  walk  in  the  flash,"  and 
"  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof."  It  is  not  impossible 
for  us  to  "  work  out  our  own  salvation  ;"  but  it  is  only 
rendered  possible  by  God,  who  "  worketh  in  us  to  will  and 
to  do,  of  his  good  pleasure,"  Phil,  ii,  12,  13. 

4.  Yes,  says  the  doctor,  '*  God  works  all  our  works  in 
us  and  for  us,  not  by  his  own  immediate  agency,  but  by 
means  of  those  powers  which  he  has  given  us  for  that  pur- 
pose !"  (HisL  of  Cor.  vol.  i,  p.  283.) 

In  reply  to  this  we  will  ask  a  few  plain  questions  : — 
When  God  is  said  to  have  given  to  the  Gentiles  repent- 
ance unto  life, — to  have  given  to  the  Philippians  to  be- 
lieve, — and  to  have  purified  the  heart  of  Cornelius  by  faith, 
— is  nothing  meant  but  that  he  had  given  to  them  fucul- 
ties  capable  of  repentance,  faith,  and  holy  obedience  ? 
Had  they  not,  at  tliis  rate,  repentance  before  they  repent- 
ed, and  faith  i)efore  tliey  believed,  and  purity  in  the  midst 
of  all  their  fiUhiness?  And  since  God  has  given  to  all  men 
the  same  jjowers,  does  it  not  follow  that  God  has  given  to 
all  men  repentance,  faith,  and  |)urity  oflieart  ?  When  Jesus 
Christ  is  said  to  be  "  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour  to 
give  repentance  to  Israel,"  is  it  meant  that  he  was  ex- 
alted  to  give  to  the  Israelites  those  powers  winch  they  had 
possessed  from  their  infancy  ?  Is  not  this  something  like 
being  exalted  to  create  those  who  were  already  created  ? 
\  hundred  such  (jucstions  njight  be  proposed,  all  tending 
to  show  how  little  they  who  make  these  assertions  attend 
to  the  word  of  God  ! 


THE    INFLl^NCE    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIKIT.  379 

There  is  a  manifest  distinction  between  the  powers 
which  God  has  given  us  by  nature,  and  that  which  is  ne- 
cessary to  the  proper  and  efTectual  use  of  them.  A  man 
may  have  eyes,  and  yet  be  blind  ;  ears,  and'  be  deaf ; 
hands  and  feet,  and  be  maimed  or  lame ;  all  the  members 
of  the  human  body,  and  be  so  paralyzed  as  to  have  no  use 
of  them  ;  and  lungs  which  are  rotten  and  cannot  respire. 
The  first  thing  lie  will  want,  therefore,  is  a  cure.  Again : 
it  is  not  enough  that  God  has  given  us  eyes ;  we  cannot 
see  till  he  has  also  given  us  light.  Our  ears  would  not 
answer  the  purpose  of  hearing,  if  we  lived  in  vacuo,  or  if 
the  air  were  robbed  of  its  elasticity.  Our  members, 
though  in  themselves  formed  for  motion,  would  not  move 
at  our  will,  unless  God  had  superadded  something  to  which 
we  find  it  diiricult  to  give  a  name.  And  our  vital  organs 
would  answer  no  purpose  of  life  without  the  vital  air  for 
respiration.  The  judicious  reader  is  left  to  make  the 
application. 

To  conclude  :  the  dogmas  of  philosophical  and  rational- 
izing  divines,  and  the  dreams  of  entluisiasts,  though  di- 
rectly  opposed  to  each  other,  are  equally  distant  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  sacred  writings.  Socinians,  and  less  con- 
sistent Trinitarians,  may  reject  the  plain  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture, deny  all  intercourse  with  heaven,  and  ridicule  the 
professions  of  serious  Christians  as  the  cant  of  hypocrisy  ; 
while  impostors  and  madmen  impute  to  the  Spirit  of  God 
their  imaginary  revelations,  or  absurd  and  unscriptural 
impressions  :  the  one  may  renounce  the  truth  of  God,  and 
the  other  may  abuse  it ;  but  it  stands  on  its  own  basis, 
and  is  immovable  as  the  Rock  on  which  the  Christian 
church  is  built. 

GrAnting  that  our  Lord  promised  to  his  immediate  fol- 
lowers the  knowledge  of  evangelical  truth  by  direct  inspi- 
ration, and  those  miraculous  powers  which  demonstrated 
that  they  spake  the  wisdom  and  truth  of  God, — we  have 
found  it  equally  true  that  he  promised  the  Holy  Spirit,  for 
other  purposes,  to  all  his  followers  in  all  ages, — that  his 
promises  have  hitherto  been  fulfilled, — that  the  Scriptures 
are  faithful  records  of  the  fulfilment,  as  well  as  of  the  pro- 
mise,— that  the  blessing  is  necessary  to  each  individual  of 
manlfind, — and  that  '•  the  same  Lord  is  rich  unto  all  that 
call  upon  him."     The  miraculous  powers  were  given  for 


380  THE    CONCLUSION. 

the  introduction  of  Christianity,  and  for  its  estabhshmcnt 
in  the  world  :  and  they  were  not  withdrawn  until  the 
important  design  was  accomplished.  The  same  necessity 
for  them  now  no  longer  remains.  The  ordinary  influences 
of  the  Spirit  were  originally  promised  for  the  personal  sal- 
vation of  each  individual  of  mankind.  That  purpose  is  not 
yet  universally  eflected;  but  the  same  necessity  for  them 
remains.  The  cessation  of  the  former,  therefore,  by  no 
means  implies  the  cessation  of  the  latter.  In  six  days 
God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  all  that  are  in 
them,  and  rested  the  seventh  day.  But  a  cessation  from 
creation  by  no  means  implies  that  the  divine  energies 
are  not  still  engaged  in  the  preservation,  propagation,  and 
improvement  of  the  work  of  his  hands.  Nor  does  God's 
withdrawing  those  extraordinary  powers,  by  which  the 
Christian  church  was  called  into  existence,  argue  that  lie 
will  not  be  with  his  faithful  servants  "  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world." 


THE  CONCLUSION. 

In  examining  and  refuting  the  doctrines  of  modern 
Socinians,  it  can  scarcely  escape  our  observation,  that  the 
source  of  their  destructive  errors  is  the  pride  of  reason. 
"  If  any  man  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the 
words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine 
which  is  according  to  godliness,  he  is  proud,"  1  Tim.  vi,  3. 
One  who  is  a  stranger  to  the  case  might  naturally  suppose 
that  a  person  born  in  a  Christian  country,  and  surrounded 
from  his  infancy  by  the  direct  or  reflected  light  of  divine 
revelation,  \vo\fld  be  satisfied  with  such  a  source  of  in- 
struction in  everything  connected  with  God  and  religion. 
But  this  is  not  the  case  with  those  who  run  the  race  of 
Socinianism.  As  if  every  man  were  a  fool  who  does  not 
light  a  taper  of  his  own  to  seek  the  meridian  .sun,  their 
belief  <>f  the  divine  testimony  must  l»e  suspended,  till 
from  other  sources  they  have  denionstrated  to  themselves 
the  being,  attributes,  and  will  of  God.  However  diflicult 
such  a  dymonstration  might  be  to  one  who  has  no  previous 
knowledge  of  these  subjects,  it  is  not  dilhcult  to  one  who, 


TftE    CONCLVSIOX.  381 

in  fact,  is  only  seeking  a  proof  of  his  own  ingenuity,  and 
who  tlierefore  can  easily  persuade  himself  that  he  has 
demonstrated  by  reason  what  he  has  really  learned  from 
revelation.  The  result  of  his  imaginary  reseiftches  he 
calls  natural  religion. 

Some  of  the  principal  doctrines  of  this  natural  religion 
are, — "  God  is,"  "  God  is  one,"  "  God  is  a  spirit,"  and 
"  God  is  love."  As  the  doctrines  thus  adopted  are  all 
borrowed  from  divine  revelation,  from  thence  they  ought 
to  be  illustrated.  For  although  our  novice  has  imagined 
that  he  has  perfectly  demonstrated  them,  he  has  not  even 
perfectly  understood  one  of  them.  He  knows  neither  what 
God  is,  what  is  the  nature  of  his  unity,  what  a  spirit  is,  nor 
how  his  love  is  modulated.  It  is  easy  to  conceive  the  pos- 
sibility and  the  propriety  of  receiving  additional  instruction 
from  divine  revelation,  on  subjects  which  as  yet  we  have 
but  imperfectly  comprehended.  But  how  is  it  possible  for  a 
man  to  reason  conclusively  from  premises  which  he  does 
not  perfectly  understand,  and  which,  therefore,  he  cannot 
compare  ?  Is  not  this  to  build  knowledge  on  ignorance  1 
The  superstructure  raised  on  such  a  basis  is  "  a  castle  in 
the  air."  Yet  this  is  the  regular  process  of  a  philoso- 
phical religionist.     Untutored  by  a  celestial  messenger, 

Into  the  heaven  of  heavens  he  presumes, 
An  earthly  guest. 

From  his  crude  notions  of  what  God  is  in  some  respects, 
he  boldly  infers  what  he  must  be  in  other  respects. — 
From  his  dark  metaphysical  ideas  of  spirit,  and  of  the 
simplicity  or  unity  of  spirit,  he  concludes,  by  wholesale, 
that  there  can  be  no  distinction  in  the  Deity.  And  from 
his  imperfect  notion  of  the  divine  benevolence,  as  he  calls 
it,  he  presumes  to  dictate  what  God  must  and  what  he 
must  not  do. 

Having  passed  his  novitiate,  and,  nurtured  in  academic 
groves,  having  become  a  stanch  and  positive  philosopher, 
he  is  now  prepared  to  make  use  of  the  book  of  revelation, 
as  far  as  it  will  sanction  his  creed,  or  adorn  his  opinions. 
His  adoption  of  the  sacred  code  is,  however,  strictly 
guarded  by  this  apothegm,  that  "as  reason  is  a  partial 
revelartion  of  the  being,  attributes,  and  will  of  God,  a  sub- 
sequent  and  more  perfect  revelation  cannot  contradict  it." 


382  THE    CONCLUSION. 

His  philosophical  system  of  "  natural  religion"  is  tlius  set 
up  as  an  infallible  test,  by  which  every  doctrine  of  divine 
revelation  is  to  be  tried.  His  reason  is  not,  like  that  of 
a  professed  infidel,  so  far  perverted  as  to  deny  the  divine 
mission,  as  he  affects  to  call  ii,  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  so 
confident  is  he  of  the  precision  of  every  previous  induction 
of  reason,  that  a  system  promulged  by  divine  authority  is 
not  permitted  to  convict  him  of  any  error  in  judgment.  He 
ia  infallible.  So  complete  is  his  information  on  almost 
every  subject,  and  so  competent  has  he  found  himself  to 
the  most  abstruse  ideas  and  reasonings,  tiiat  every  thing 
M'hich  rises  abo\'^  his  present  opinions,  as  well  as  what- 
ever contradicts  them,  must  be  erroneous.  With  such  a 
preparation  for  the  study  of  a  supernatural  revelation  of 
those  things  which  "  no  one  knows  but  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  he  to  whom  the  Spirit  hatii  revealed  them,"  how  i;--  it 
possible  but  that  many  obvious  scriptural  truths  must  be 
discarded  ?  "The  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,"  is  "  fool- 
ishness" to  one  who  is  thus  "wise  in  his  own  eyes,  and 
prudent  in  his  own  conceit." 

To  get  rid  of  the  difficulties  which  divine  revelation  has 
thrown  in  his  way,  is  now  the  great  work  of  our  philoso- 
phical divine.  Tliia  herculean  task  does  not  discourage 
those  who,  like  Dr.  Priestley,  have  resolved  not  to  be 
convinced,  and  aver  that  the  doctrines  of  the  trinity, 
and  of  the  atonement,  "  are  things  which  no  miracles  can 
prove."  [Hist,  of  Cor.  vol.  ii,  p.  8G1.)  By  what  methods 
this  is  to  be  done,  it  was  at  one  time  intended  here  to  ex- 
emplify. But  the  catalogue  of"  ways  and  means,"  drawn 
merely  from  Mr.  CJ.'s  performance,  became  so  long  and 
tedious  that  it  is  now  omitted.  The  reader  is,  therefore, 
referred  to  the  preceding  pages  for  a  sufiicient  number  of 
examples  of  the  unfair  and  unwarrantable  means  in  com- 
mon use  among  Sociniaiis,  by  which  -the  Bible  is  to  be 
purged  from  every  thing  that  ollends  their  illuuiinalcd 
reason. 

But  wherefore  all  these  mighty  efiorts,  in  which  the 
whole  Socinian  corps  unite  their  strength,  to  purge  from 
all  mystery  the  revelation  which  the  "  great,  mysterious 
God"  has  given  of  himself,  his  ways,  and  his  will  ?  Is 
JSocinianistn  itself  so  clear  and  intelligible  that  no  ditti- 
culty  remains  ?     Have  its  votaries  left  no  mystery  unex- 


•^IIE    CONCLUSION.  383 

plored  ?  Have  they  explained  what  God  is, — what  the 
divine  Spirit  is, — how  he  exists,  without  beginning,  and 
without  succession, — how  he  fills  all  space  without  exten- 
sion,— how  he  foresees  the  actions  of  men,  and  yet  leaves 
them  free  1 — how  evil  originated  when  as  yet  there  was 
nothing  but  good  ?  By  no  means.  Nay,  a  Socinian  is 
still  a  mystery  to  himself.  He  can  explain  neither  how 
his  material  body  thinks,  nor  how  an  immaterial,  thinking 
substance  is  united  with  it.  All  this  migiit,  however,  be 
forgiven,  if  he  did  not  pretend  to  divest  religion  of  all  its 
mysteries.  To  be  ignorant  is  human  ;  but  the  pride  of 
understanding  was  not  made  for  man.  "  The  foolishness 
of  God,  however,  is  wiser  than  men."  Of  all  the  known 
systems  of  theology,  the  Bible,  which  "  explains  all  mys- 
teries but  its  own,"  has  the  fewest  mysteries.  Compare 
it  with  Socinianism,  and  it  will  be  found  that  the  latter,  in 
attempting  to  remove  the  veil  from  the  holy  of  holies,  has 
hung  the  temple  of  God  with  cobwebs.  The  philosophi- 
cal rehgion  also  has  its  mysteries  :  mysteries  of  its  own 
creation.  Mr.  G.  cannot  get  over  the  existence  of  the 
devil,  without  substituting  two  mysteries  for  one.  Thus, 
on  the  one  hand,  he  has  invented  or  borrowed  the  inven- 
tion  of  an  imaginary  personage,  whom  he  calls  "  the 
angel  of  death,"  and  whom  he  supposes  to  hold  a  contest 
even  with  an  arcliangel,  about  the  departed  soul  of  Moses. 
(See  p.  53.)  On  the  other  hand,  to  supply  the  place  of 
the  devil,  he  has  invented  an  abstract  evil  principle,  an 
accident  without  a  substance,  as  mischievous  as  the  devil 
himself.  Lest  it  should  appear  that  "  the  Word  of  God 
was  with  God,"  before  his  incarnation,  some  of  Mr.  G.'s 
brethren  contrive  to  send  the  human  nature  of  Christ  up 
to  heaven,  before  he  opened  his  ministry,  that  he  might 
receive  his  instructions  and  his  commission.  When  Jesus 
Christ  evinces  his  mysterious  union  with  the  divine  na- 
ture, by  the  divine  perfections  which  he  exerted,  and  Mr. 
G.  is  forced  to  concede  to  him  those  perfections,  this 
metaphysician  contrives  to  abstract  the  divine  perfections 
from  the  cjivine  nature,  and  attributes  them,  in  this  ab- 
stracted form,  to  mere  humanity.  Here  again  two  mys- 
teries are  substituted  for  one !  Here  is  the  mystery  of 
the  £rt)straction  :  a  mystery  ten  thousand  times  more  pro- 
found  than  that  which  should  suppose  that  the  rays  of  the 


384  THE    CONCLUSION, 

sun  are  abstracted  from  that  luminous  body  with  all  their 
Bplendour.  And  here  is  the  mystery  of  delegation  which 
supposes  infinite  perfections  to  be  possessed  in'  a  finite 
being  :  a  mystery  infinitely  greater  than  that  which  sup- 
poses this  whole  material  creation  to  be  enclosed  in  a 
nutshell.  To  exclude  the  mystery  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  many  mysteries  are  invented.  From  these 
teachers  of  "simple  Christianity,"  we  learn  the  mysteries 
of  a  Spirit  which  is  not  a  spirit, — of  a  being  who  has  no 
real  existence, — who  has  properties  without  any  substance 
in  which  they  inhere, — searches  all  things  without  an  un- 
derstanding. — acts  voluntarily  without  a  will, — and  is  nei- 
ther a  creature  nor  the  Creator.  To  rid  the  world  of  the 
whole  mystery  of  the  trinity,  a  mysterious  unity  is  invent- 
ed, which  more  than  equals  the  mystery  of  an  atom  filling 
the  universe.  Nor  have  we  yet  explored  all  the  mystei  ies 
of  Socinianism.  To  set  aside  that  of  the  miraculous  con- 
ception, these  philosophical  divines  give  us  our  choice 
between  a  Saviour  generated  in  the  ordinary  way,  without 
partaking  the  ordinary  defilement;  and,  as  if  Satan  might 
cast  out  Satan,  a  Saviour  is  born  a  sinner  lo  save  his  peo- 
ple from  their  sins.  The  mystery  of  a  proper  "  propitia- 
tion  for  our  sins,"  they  have  not  found  how  to  avoid, 
without  first  paying  a  compliment  to  the  sacred  writers, 
and  supposing  the  Jewish  sin-ofierings  to  have  been  "  a 
figure  for  the  time  then  present,"  and  then  paying  a  com- 
pliment to  their  idol,  and  supposing  the  "ofi'ering  for  sin," 
made  by  the  Son  of  God,  to  be  so  denominated  by  a  figura- 
tive allusion  to  those  ofierings  which  were  "  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come,"  Thus  the  oflering  of  Christ  is 
mysteriously  reduced  to  "  the  shadow  of  a  shade  :"  and,  to 
add  to  the  mystery,  no  substance  is  let't  to  account  for  the 
derivation  ot  either  the  shade  or  the  shadow.  Beside  this, 
on  the  one  hand  the  beloved  Son  of  liod  is  supposed  to 
have  suffered  the  penalty  of  sin  without  any  respect  to  sin 
cointnitted  by  himself  or  by  others,  as  the  criminal  cause  ; 
and  on  the  other  hand  God  is  supposed,  as  the  moral  (lO- 
vernor  of  the  universe,  to  be  at  once  just  and  the  justifier 
of  the  ungodly  who  believe  in  Jesus,  without  any  declara- 
tion of  his  righteousness  by  setting  forth  a  propitiatory. 
Here  again  the  mysteries  are  multiplied.  The  righteous 
God  is  supposed  to  have  iullicted  the  penalty  where  it  was 


885 

on  no  account  due ;  and  to  have  remitted  it  where  it  was 

properly  and  justly  due,  without  even  a  qualified  substitu- 
tion of  the  persons,  or  any  commutation  of  punishment. 
None  but  a  Socinian  can  explain  this  mystery  which  sup- 
poses  public  justice  to  punish  the  innocent,  and  to  reward 
the  guilty.  Having  exhausted  their  own  resources,  and 
finding  their  own  imagination  insolvent,  they  now  bor- 
row  the  mysteries  of  that  very  church  against  which  they 
have. protested.  To  blot  out  from  the  book  of  God  the 
eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked,  two  popish  mysteries 
are  revived.  First,  hell  is  turned  into  a  purgatory  :  and 
then,  the  finally  impenitent  being  excluded  from  the  con- 
gregation  of  the  righteous,  a  new  limbiis  is  opened  for 
their  reception,  between  heaven  and  hell.  So  true  it  is 
that  extremes  meet  in  the  antipodes  of  truth  !  The  Roman 
and  the  Socinian  churches  having  separated,  the  one 
having  gone  into  the  extreme  of  superstition,  and  the 
other  into  the  extreme  of  rational  refinement,  meet  to- 
gether  in  a  fabulous  Umbo,  or  a  chimerical  purgatory. 

Such  are  the  mysterious  absurdities  which  rational 
Christians  can  swallow  and  digest,  while  they  reject  the 
sublime  and  heavenly  truths  of  the  gospel  !  So  true  it  is 
that  more  faith  is  required  to  make  a  Socinian  or  an  infi- 
del than  to  make  a  Christian. 

The  men  who  sincerely  and  cordially  love  the  Bible  are 
now  called  upon  to  consider  seriously  how  much  it  is 
transformed  by  these  calm  investigators.  "  Let  it  be 
neither  mine  nor  thine,"  said  the  woman  who  was  not  the 
mother  of  the  child  in  question,  "  but  divide  it."  Such  is 
the  zeal  of  the  Socinians  to  have  their  wisdom  made  cur- 
rent by  the  stamp  of  divine  authority,  that  they  rend  in 
pieces  the  book  of  God,  rather  than  not  have  it  on  their 
side.  It  is  related  by  the  Rev.  W.  Jones,  whose  Anti- 
socinian  works  deserve  the  most  serious  attention,  that 
"  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  wrote  a  celebrated  book  upon  the 
Being  and  Attributes  of  God  ;  and  having  discovered,  as 
he  thought,  by  the  force  of  his  own  wit,  what  God  is,  and 
must  be,  in  all  respects,  he  rejected  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  trinity ;  and,  to  put  the  best  fiice  he  could  upon 
his  unbelief,  spent  much  of  the  remainder  of  his  life  in 
writing  ambiguous  comments,  and  finding  various  read- 
ings, that  is,  in  picking  holes  in  the  Bible."  The  same 
33 


386  THE    COKCLVSIOX. 

is  the  constant  practice  of  our  Unitarian  divines.  If  they 
are  to  be  believed,  how  small  a  part  of  the  New  Testament 
is  wenuine  !  and  how  much  is  the  rest  obscured  by  their 
elucidations  !  According  to  them  its  language  is  but  un- 
meaning bombast !  It  is  a  mere  "  mountain  in  labour  !" 
They  glory  in  degrading  it,  by  insinuating  that  it  is 
almost  replete  with  interpolations,  false  readings,  contra- 
dictory representations,  and  unmeaning  figures,  and  by 
charging  the  sacred  writers  with  producing  "  lame  ac- 
counts, improper  quotations,  and  inconclusive  reasonings." 
{Dr.  Priestley's  I2th  letter  to  Mr.  Burn.)  Nor  does  it  at 
all  concern  them,  that  they  are  constantly  undermining 
its  authority  ;  for  Socinianism  has  borrowed  all  it  wants, 
and  can  support  its  dignity  by  reason,  without  being  any 
longer  much  beholden  to  revelation.  Bat  a  Christian 
believer  is  as  the  mother  of  the  child,  whose  life  was 
bound  up  in  the  life  of  her  infant.  ''  If  the  foundations 
be  destroyed,  what  can  the  rigliteous  do?" 

The  canons  of  criticism  wliich  the  Socinians  have 
adopted,  are  such  as,  if  allowed,  may  equally  serve  to 
subvert  every  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  to  undermine  the 
credit  of  the  whole  revelation  of  God.  The  arguments 
adduced  to  disprove  the  existence  of  the  devil  are  equally 
sufficient  to  disprove  the  existence  of  all  the  heavenly 
hosts.  The  mode  of  reasoning  which  is  used  in  quashing 
the  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  the  Word  and  of  the  Spi- 
rit, needs  only  a  bold  innovator,  an  eastern  philosopher, 
who  will  venture,  on  the  same  ground,  to  destroy  all  posi- 
tive evidence  of  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Father.  If 
Socinians  have  disproved  the  proper  atonement  made  by 
Jesus  Christ,  they  can  prove  that  his  being  slain  "  by  the 
determinate  counsel  of  God"  was  unjust  and  cruel  :  and 
can  set  aside  both  the  mercy  and  the  justice  of  God.  The 
extraordinary  influence  of  the  Spirit  bf  Go<l  must  fall  be- 
fore tlie  artillery  which  levels  the  ordinary  :  and  wlien  it 
is  m:fdc  to  a|)pear  tliat  mankind  heal  the  maladi(>s  of  their 
own  mind,  and  that  the  dead  in  sin  arise  witliout  ♦'  the 
Spirit  of  life  from  God,"  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  of  his 
apostles  will  need  no  longer  to.be  attributed  to  '•  the  finger 
of  God."  The  criticisms  which  remove  our  dread  of  eter- 
nal misery  may  equally  subvert  our  ho|>e  in  the  eternal 
God,  who,  by  an  everlasting  covenant,  has  promised  us  a 
kingdom  which  shall  endure  for  ever. 


*HE    CONCLUSION.  387 

The  authority  of  tlie  evangelists  may  as  well  be  over- 
turned by  the  same  engine  by  which  they  attempt  to 
overturn  the  authority  of  the  apostolic  epistles.  Mr.  Paine 
can  furnish  them  with  objections  to  the  whole  gospel,  as 
specious  as  those  which  they  exhibit  against  the  first 
chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  And  Moses  and  the 
prophets  will  come  under  the  same  sentence  of  condem- 
nation  with  the  apostles  and  evangelists ;  for  their  doc- 
trine is  the  same,  the  latter  relating  as  facts  what  the 
former  predict  as  future.  Dr.  Priestley,  therefore,  made 
only  an  honest  confession  when  he  said,  "  If  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  were  really  scriptural,  I  hesitate  not  to  say 
that  by  me  the  evidences  of  revealed  religion  would  be 
deemed  unsatisfactory." 

Let  the  subject  be  maturely  considered,  and  it  ivill  be 
found  that  Socinianism  destroys  all  the  prominent  features 
and  vital  parts  of  Christianity.  What  part  of  the  system 
of  human  redemption  does  a  Socinian  believe  ?  He  talks 
loudly  of  the  "  divine  mission  of  Jesus,"  and  professes  to 
regard  him  as  a  "  teacher  sent  from  God  ;"  but  what  ho- 
nour does  he  put  upon  him  while,  with  Dr.  Priestley,  he 
accounts  him  "  fallible,"  like  other  men  ;  {Def,  of  IJnita- 
rianism  for  1787,  p.  Ill  ;)  and,  with  Mr.  G.,  he  deems 
him  a  mere  time-server  who  accommodates  his  discourse 
to  the  fashionable  superstition  of  the  day  ;  or  a  mere  im- 
postor, who,  pretending  to  cast  out  demons,  when  no  such 
beings  exist,  makes  a  display  of  false  credentials  1  (See 
p.  41.)  With  the  exception  of  the  resurrection  of  the  hu- 
man  body,  and  of  the  truths  which  he  supposes  himself  to 
have  learned  from  reason,  which  of  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Christ  does  he  believe  ?  The  story  of  Eve  and  the 
serpent,  though  "  written  for  our  learning,"  he  deems  a 
fable  which  he  does  not  care  to  explain.  (See  p.  44.)  He 
denies  that  by  the  offence  of  one  (judgment  came)  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation  ;  and  that  "  by  one  man's  disobe- 
dience many  were  made  sinners."  He  will  not  allow  that 
"  the  Word,  which  was  made  flesh,  was  God  ;"  or,  if  ho 
acknowledge  it  for  a  moment,  it  is  only  that  he  may  deny 
it  at  a  more  convenient  time,  and  under  more  auspicious 
circumstances.  He  makes  it  his  chief  concern  to  show 
that  '^Christ  hath  (not)  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us  ;"  that  he  is  not  "  the  pro- 


388  THE    CONCLUSION. 

pitiation  for  our  sins  ;"  that  '•  we  have  (not)  redemption 
through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;"  and  that 
"  God  hath  (not)  set  him  forth  a  propitiation  through  faith 
in  his  blood."  He  counts  it  enthusiasm  to  say  that  "God 
will  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him."  Accord, 
ing  to  him  there  is  no  devil ;  and  therefore  "  the  Son  of 
God  was  (not)  manifested  to  destroy  tlic  works  of  the 
devil."  Even  the  perfect  example  whicli  Jesus  Christ 
has  left  for  his  disciples,  is  ruined  for  the  support  of 
Socinianism.  If  Dr.  Priestley  thought  Jesus  Christ, 
like  other  men,  a  peccable  creature,  Mr.  H.  has  gone 
still  farther.  He  has  found  a  tempter  in  the  breast  of  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  ascribes  to  our  Saviour  the  thought 
of  pursuing  "  worldly  objects"  by  the  abuse  of  his  niiracu- 
lous  powers.  If  Mr.  G.'s  comment,  (see  p.  52,)  compared 
with  the  text,  be  true,  the  Son  of  God  had  it  in  contem- 
plation  to  "gratify  his  palate"  by  unwarrantable  means ; 
to  satisfy  a  vain  ambition,  and  "  command  universal  admi- 
ration"  by  an  act  approaching  to  suicide  ;  and  to  promote 
his  separate  interest  at  the  expense  of  the  honour  of  God, 
by  "  the  corrupt  use  of  his  power."  If  the  thought  of 
foolishness  is  sin,  what  then  becomes  of  the  perfect  Chris- 
tian pattern?  If  he  be  a  materialist,  he  scouts  tiic  opinion 
that,  "  when  the  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  is  dis- 
solved, we  have  a  building  of  God,  a  house  not  made  with 
hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens  :"  and  asserts  that  our  only 
habitation  for  awhile  is  in  the  dust  of  death.  He  robs 
the  law  of  God  of  its  sanction,  by  quenching  "  the  un- 
quenchable fire  ;"  and  the  gospel  of  its  con.-;olation,  by 
"  counting  the  blood  of  the  covenant  an  unholy  (a  common) 
thing,  and  by  denying  the  Spirit  of  grace."  He  robs  God 
of  his  peculiar  character,  as  a  supreme,  moral  governor  ; 
and  man  of  his  liberty  as  a  moral  agept.  In  a  word,  he 
robs  us  of  our  immortal  soul,  and  of  our  divine  Saviour; 
and  what  does  he  leave  us  to  fear  or  to  hope? 

Alter  these  Socinian  operations,  what  is  left  of  Chris- 
tianity to  support  even  its  existence  ?  It  is  not  only  dis- 
membered, hut  cmljowelh'd.  and  robbed  of  its  very  vitals. 
As  a  mere  code  of  morals  it  may  still  subsist ;  but,  even  in 
this  respect,  its  strength  will  be  impaired,  and  its  etfectivo 
force  win  be  lost.  It  wants  those  striking  demonstrations 
of  God's  hatred   to  sin   which  beget   religious   fear,  and 


THE    CONCLUSION.  389 

those  convincing  proofs  of  his  love  to  mankind  which 
are  the  most  powerful  arguments  for  their  love,  gratitude, 
and  obedience  to  him,  and  which  can  be  derived *rnly  from 
the  propitiatory  death  of  its  great  Author.  But  as  a  cove- 
nant of  grace,  established  between  God  and  his  offending 
and  estranged  creatures,  it  cannot  possibly  stand.  If 
the  moral,  or  legal  part  of  Christianity  may  continue 
after  the  subversion  of  those  doctrines  which  we  have 
been  culled  upon  to  vindicate,  the  federal  part  of  it,  and 
all  that  is  properly  gospel  in  it,  must  needs  be  involved 
with  them  in  their  ruin  ;  for  that  is  all  built  upon  the  pro- 
pitiation of  Christ,  and  his  propitiation  upon  his  miracu- 
lous birth  and  his  divinity,  which  are  therefore  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Christian  religion. 

But,  after  all,  let  us  not  be  understood  as  uttering  the 
language  of  despondency.  The  past  experience  of  true 
Christians  of  all  denominations,  is,  to  themselves  at  least, 
an  answer  to  all  the  sophistry  of  the  "  rational  dis- 
senters," and  an  antidote  to  all  their  refinements.  They 
may  not  be  able  to  state  with  metaphysical  precision  the 
doctrines  which  they  hold,  nor  to  answer  all  the  cavils  of 
those  who  with  a  learned  and  imposing  air  impugn  those 
doctrines ;  but  they  "  know  of  whom  they  have  learned 
them,"  and  have  found  them  "  the  power  of  God  unto  sal- 
vation." St.  John  and  St.  Paul  will  be  acknowledged,  and 
their  doctrine  will  be  "received  with  meekness,  as  the 
ingrafted  word  which  is  able  to  save  the  soul,"  when  Mr. 
G.  and  his  Lectures  are  sunk  into  oblivion. 

The  ignorance  and  levity  of  some  have  prepared  them 
beforehand  to  fall  into  the  snare  which  is  laid  for  them. 
To  these,  Socinianism  and  no  religion  are  synonymous 
terms.  From  such  converts  the  cause  of  vice,  immora- 
lity, and  profaneness,  will  gain  more  than  the  cause  of 
which  Mr.  G.  is  the  advocate.  Awhile  ago  they  paid  but 
little  attention  to  the  Bible,  and  after  the  first  ferment  is 
over,  they  will  pay  as  little  to  their  new  leader.  It  is  the 
property  of  Socinianism  to  quench  all  zeal  but  that  of  pro- 
selytisni  to  its  own  system :  and  of  that  zeal,  in  such  a 
cause,  only  a  few  refined  spirits  will  be  found  possessed. 
A  false  philosophy  laid  the  foundation  of  this  vacant 
temple,  and  that  philosophy  only  can  raise  the  super- 
structure. 

33* 


390  INDEX    TO    THE    SUBJECTS. 

The  decision  of  the  important  questions  which  are 
discussed  in  these  pages  is  closely  connected  with  our 
present  and  final  happiness,  as  individuals.  "  To  his  own 
master  each  of  us  stands  or  falls."  Whether,  therefore, 
the  reader  be  a  teacher  or  a  student  of  divinity  ;  refined 
or  vulgar  ;  converted  from  ignorance  to  Socinianism,  or 
perverted  from  Christianity  ;  lukewarm  or  zealous  in  the 
cause  he  has  espoused  :  whether  he  be  in  danger  from 
Mr.  G.'s  sophistry,  inclining  toward  bis  opinions,  or 
established  in  them,  it  may  not  yet  be  too  late  for  him 
to  consider  that  as  the  precepts  of  Christianity  are  the 
test  of  our  obedience,  its  doctrines  are  intended  to  be  the 
test  of  our  docility ;  that  he  is  as  much  acco\mtable  to 
God  for  his  religious  opinions  as  for  his  moral  actions  ; 
and  that  nothing  but  "  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  can 
make  him  free." 


INDEX  TO  THE  SUBJECTS. 


Adam,  made  in  the  image  of  God,  274,  296 — his  fall,  '277— conse- 
quences oflhe  fall  of,  277,  300 — begat  a  son  in  his  own  image, 
274 — posterity  of,  involved,  281 — reprieved  with  his  posterity, 
28r — state  of,  and  his  posterity  under  a  reprieve,  28(3 — his  loss, 
and  that  of  his  posterity,  289 — and  his  posterity  under  a  new 
covenant,  281)— scriptural  objections  answered,  293 — philosophi- 
cal objections  answered,  295. 

Advocate,  Jesus  Christ  our,  180. 

Ai<jv,  and  its  derivatives,  205 — not  indefinite,  209 — objections 
answered,  210. 

Analogy,  what.  111 — trinity  illustrated  by,  115. 

Angel,  of  Jehovah,  Jesus  ('hrist  (he,  126. 

Angels,  creation  of,  37,  38— why  so  called,  38— fall  of,  38— sin 
of,  39. 

Appearances,  of  the  Word  of  God,  under  the  Old  Testament,  127. 

Atheism,  Socinianism  allied  to,  97. 

Athcnagoraa,  154. 

Alovimnit,  how  made,  1C3 — what,  104 — objccUons  to,  answcrcil, 
ICG — death  ofChrist  an,  171 — of  Christ,  tauphl  by  the  divine  raes- 
tient,'crs,  \H\ — made  by  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  18<i — justice 
and  nurcy  displayed  by  the,  lH(i — whether  a  .satisfaction,  188— 
consistent  with  repentance,  mutual  forpivcne.-s,  and  obedience, 
191— of  Christ,  a  purification,  195 — not  made  by  the  death  of  the 
apo.siles,  197.     See  propitiation. 

AtlriimU,  the  lloly  Spirit  not  a  mere,  97.    See  perfections. 


INDEX   TO    THE    SUBJECTS.  891 

Baptism,  institution  of,  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, 
61,  148. 

Being,  its  image  and  operation,  their  analogy  to  the.trvftity,  117. 

Benedietion.  in  the  name  of  Christ,  90 — in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  104 — in  the  name  of  the  trinity,  148. 

Breath,  the  Holy  Spirit  not  properly  a,  9tJ. 

Chastisement  distinguished  from  punishment,  200,  223. 

Clemens,  of  Rome,  151 — of  Alexandria,  154. 

Creation,  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ,  65 — a  proof  of  his  godhead,  67. 

Demons,  possessing  mankind,  40 — cast  out,  40 — were  spirits,  41 — » 
chief  of,  the  devil,  42. 

Depravity,  hereditary,  265,  301.     See  Adam. 

Devil,  not  known  from  reason,  15 — not  infinite,  37 — chief  of  demons, 
42— disputation  of,  with  Michael,  52 — ^judgment  of,  54 — offices  of, 
ascribed  to  God,  55 — existence  of,  how  connected  with  the  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel,  57 — belief  of,   connected  with  Christian 

.    duty,  58 — consistent  with  our  responsibility,  58. 

Distinction,  between  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  illustrated, 
115 — consistent  with  unity,  119 — essential, neces.sary,  and  eternal, 
119 — reasons  for  personal,  120 — ^not  only  personal,  120,  123. 

Ebionites,  314, 

Emancipation,  terms  of,  explained,  178. 

Eqiml ill/ o(  Christ  with  God,  76. 

Eternity  of  future  punishment,  proved  from  the  meaning  of  atuv 
and  its  derivatives,  205 — from  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture, 
213 — objections  to,  answered,  223. 

Eve,  seduction  of,  by  the  devil,  43 — account  of,  not  an  allegory,  45. 

Evil pri'iiciplc,  absurdity  of  abstract,  46. 

Father,  union  of  Christ  wiih,  72. 

Figures,  scriptural,  what,  95. 

Forgive'ness,ofs'ir\?.,  not  known  from  reason,  15 — of  sins,  through  the 
death  of  Christ,  17,3 — of  injuries  not  inconsistent  with  the  atone- 
ment, 192. 

Fulness,  of  God,  dwelling  in  Christ,  71. 

God,  being  of,  not  iirst  known  from  reason,  13 — ^name  of,  given  to 
Christ,  76,  143 — term,  used  in  a  subordinate  sense,  80— Jesus 
Christ  the  true,  81 — the  great,  81 — the  only  wise,  81 — the  mighty, 
82,  131,  135 — the  supreme  and  ever  blessed,  84— -the  Holy  Spirit 
is,  108, 113 — the  Holy  Spirit  not  a  being  distinct  from,  108 — the 
Holy  Spirit  is  called,  110,  132 — perfections  of,  ascribed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  110,  133— word  of,  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  112 
— works  of,  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  112,  133 — moral  govern- 
ment of,  198 — human  passions  ascribed  to,  237. 

Goodness  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  98. 

Heathens,  acknowledged  their  ignorance  of  divine  things,  11 — 
could  not  ascertain  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  18 — origin  of 
divine  knowledge  among,  21. 

Holiness  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  98. 

Holy  Ghost.    See  Spirit  of  God. 

Ideas,  origin  of,  10. 

JehovdH.  name  of,  ascribed  to  Christ,  90. 

Jesus  Christ,  temptation  of,  49 — pre-existence  of,  62 — Creator  of  the 
world,  65,  87,  135,  143— divine  perfections  ascribed  to,  68, 145 — 


392  INDEX    TO    THE    SUBJECTS. 

divine  perfections,  proof  of  divinity  of,  09 — div^ine  nature  ascribed 
to,  71 — fulness  of  God  in,  71 — union  of,  with  God,  72 — equality  of, 
with  God,  74 — denominated  God,  7G.  See  God — the  only  Lord 
God,  85 — the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  8G — forgives  sins.  86, 
145— judges,  86,  146— the  living  God,  86— the  HoV  One,  87— 
Alpha  and  Omega,  87 — Lord  of  all,  87 — Lord  of  hosts,  87 — 
searcheth  the  heart,  88 — quickeneth  the  dead,  88,  146 — the  Lord 
of  peace,  88 — is  honoured  as  the  Father,  88 — is  worshipped,  88, 
140 — the  apostles  bless  in  his  name,  90 — is  Jehovah,  90,  131, 
136 — twofold  nature  of,  93 — appearance  of,  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 126 — was  known  as  the  Son,  under  the  Old  Testament, 
127 — was  proclaimed  as  the  Son  ofGodby  John,  13() — the  phrase, 
the  Son  of  God,  implied  his  divinity,  139 — divinity  of,  demon- 
strated by  his  miracles,  139 — divinity  of,  implied  by'the  apostolic 
system  of  doctrine,  145.  See  Son  of  God,  Messiah,  and  word  of 
God. 

Ignatius,  152,  308. 

Immortality  of  the  soul,  not  known  from  reason,  18. 

Inspiration  of  Scripture,  importance  of,  238 — nature  of,  241 — as  to 
language,  249 — proved,  251 — of  the  Old  Testament,  251 — of  the 
New,  252 — objections  to,  answered,  256 — not  always  by  sugges- 
tion, 260,  26-1. 

Intelligence  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  98. 

Intercession  of  Christ,  180. 

Irenrcus,  154,  309. 

Job,  temptation  of,  not  an  allegory,  47.      » 

Judicial  terms  explained,  180. 

Justice,  how  satisfied  by  Christ, 188;  ofpunishingtheunbelicvingl90. 

Justification,  explained,  179 — by  laith  and  by  works,  distinguished, 
193. 

Justin  Martyr,  153,  309. 

Knowledge,  divine,  not  from  rea.son,  11;  viz.,  of  God,  12 — of  the 
devil,  15 — of  duration  of  future  punishment,  18 — of  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  18 — of  a  future  resurrection,  20. 

Kolnaig  explained,  201. 

Law,  design  of,  161. 

Man.    See  Adjlm. 

Matter,  form,  and  viotion,  their  analogy  to  the  trinity,  115. 

Messiah,  opinion  of  the  Jews  concerning,  135.     See  J^sus  Christ. 

Metaphor,  what,  114. 

Mind,  discourse,  and  loisdom,  or  breath,  their  analogy  to  the 
trinity,  117.  / 

Miracles,  demonstrated  the  divine  perfections  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  his  union  with  the  Father,  139,  147. 

Miraculous  conception,  asserted  by  Matthew  and  Lake,  308 — con- 
firmed by  antiquity,  308 — by  other  parts  of  Scripture,  311 — con- 
nected with  other  scriptural  doctrines,  313— evidence  against, 
refuted,  315. 

Mysteries,  of  the  gospel,  36 — not  explained  by  Socinians,  382 — 
created  by  Sociuianismj  383. 

Nature,  divine,  ascribed  to  Christ,  70. 

Nazarcnes,  314. 

Old  Testament^  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  maintaiaed  by,  126. 


INDBiX    TO    THE    SUBJECTS.  393 

perfections,  divine,  ascribed  toChrist,  68 — inseparable  from  divine 
nature,  70 — were  manifested  by  the  miracles  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
proved  his  divinity,  139 — ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  110— 
prove  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  112.  .-, 

Person,  the  Holy  Spirit  a,  95. 

Personal,  affections,  faculties,  and  offices  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
101 — pronouns  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  103 — distinction  of  the 
trinity,  in  the  Old  Testament,  126. 

Personification,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  merely  grammatical,  95 — 
figurative,  what,  95 — of  the  Holy  Spirit,  proper,  96. 

Persons,  the  analogy  of  three,  to  the  trinity,  118. 

Philosophy,  consequences  of  blending  it  with  the  doctrines  of  re- 
velation, 30. 

Phraseology,  of  the  schools,  of  no  importance  to  the  support  of 
divine  truth,  123,  149,  184. 

Plea,  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  behalf  of  men,  181. 

Poly  carp,  152. 

Power,  Holy  Spirit,  not  a  mere,  98 — ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  98. 

Pre-existencc,  of  Jesus  Christ,  62. 

Priesthood,  of  Christians,  175 — of  Christ,  175. 

Probation,  this  the  only  time  of,  213, 

Propitiation,  the  death  of  Christ  a,  172.     See  atonement. 

Punishment,  duration  of  I'uture,  not  ascertained  from  reason,  21 — 
distinguished  from  chastisement,  200 — eternal,  203 — eternal,  ac- 
cords with  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  212 — how  described, 
215 — does  not  imply  annihilation,  218 — remediless,  218 — fire  of, 
unquenchable,  219— of  Judas,  221 — state  of,  final,  222 — not  to 
purify,  223. 

Ransom,  178. 

Reason,  not  the  source  of  divine  knowledge,  9 — the  judge,  but  not 
the  rule  of  divine  truth,  23. 

Reconciliation,  Socinian  explanation  of,  refuted,  165 — by  the  death 
of  Christ,  173. 

Redemption,  by  price,  178. 

Repentance,  insufficiency  of,  17 — consistent  with  atonement,  191. 

Restoration,  universal,  considered,  227. 

Resurrection,  of  the  body,  not  ascertained  from  reason,  20 — second, 
explained,  224 — first  and  second,  224. 

Revelation,  the  only  source  of  divine  knowledge,  9 — not  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  test  of  reason,  23. 

Sacrifices,  eucharistical,  162— piacular,  162 — for  sin,  162— Leviti- 
cal,  163— of  Christ,  170— superiority  of  the,  of  Christ,  174— of 
Christians,  175 — origin  of,  176. 

Satan,  the  chief  of  demons,  Beelzebub,  the  devil,  42 — a  spiritual 
adversary,  53. 

Satisfaction  of  Christ,  18-t,  188. 

Si7i-o/ert«o-s,thenatureofLevitical,  163— the  death  of  Christ  a,  170. 

Socinianism,  the  rise  and  progre,ss  of,  in  the  mind,  380 — does  not 
explain  the  mysteries  which  it  must  acknowledge,  383 — mysteries 
created  by,  384— undermines  the  credit  of  revelation,  386 — de- 
stroys the  leading  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  387. 

Son  offfod,  his  union  with  the  Father,  72— known  as  such  under  the 
Old  Testament,  130— peculiarity  of  the  phrase,  137— implies  the 


394  INDEX    TO   THE    SUBJECTS. 

union  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  godhead,  139 — worshipped,  89, 
140 — meaning  of  the  phrase  among  the  Jews,  141.  .  See  Jesxis 

Christ. 

Spirit  of  God,  not  the  mere  abstract  power  of  God,  95 — a  person,  95 — 
not  a  figurative  person,  90— not  a  mere  breath,  96 — denial  of  per- 
sonality of,  leads  to  Atheism,  97 — attributes  of  spirit  ascribed  to, 
98 — intelligence  of  the,  98 — volition  of  the,  99 — personal  aticc- 
tions,  faculties  and  ofhces  ascribed  to  the,  101 — personal  pronouns 
applied  to  the,  103 — not  having  an  animated  body,  no  objection 
to  the  personality  of  the,  104 — benediction  in  the  name  of  the 
101 — fellowship  of  the,  no  objection  to  the  personality  of  the,  104 — 
certain  expressions  applied  to  ihe,  107 — supposed  ignorance  of  the, 
107 — given  and  sent,  108 — not  a  creature,  lUt< — is  God,  108 — not 
a  being  distinct  from  God,  108 — called  God,  109 — divine  perfec- 
tions ascribed  to  the.  1 12 — word  of  God  ascribed  to  the,  1 12 — works 
of  God  ascribed  to  the,  1 12 — divine  perfections  prove  the  divinity 
of  the,  112 — worship  due  to  the,  113 — the  phrase  implies  his  divi- 
nity, 148 — influence  of,  universal,  342 — extraordinary  influence  of 
the,  343 — Socinian  doctrine  of  the  influeiijce  of,  344 — influence  of 
the,  the  privilege  of  all,  345 — illumination  bythe,  352— holines.^by 
the,  358 — repentance  by  the,  360 — a  sinner  comes  to  Christ  by  the, 
3G0 — to  the  Father  by  the,  360— regeneration  by  the,  362— mau 
inhabited  by  the,  364 — sanctification  by  the,  365 — obedience  pro- 
duced by  the,  366 — the  fruit  of  the,  368 — Ihe  consolations  of  the, 
370 — peace,  370 — ^joy,  371,  374 — hope,  372 — objections  to  the  or- 
dinary influence  of  the,  answered,  375. 

Sun,  its  light,  and  vital  influence,  their  analogy  to  the  trinity,  llfi. 

Temptation,  of  Eve,  of  Job,  of  Jesus,  of  mankind,  from  the  devil, 
43,  46,  49,  54. 

Terms,  the  use  of  different,  relative  to  the  death  of  Christ,  195. 

Terlullian,  154,  309. 

TheopkiLus,  154. 

Trinity,  the  doctrine  of,  113 — the  unity  of,  1 19— distinction  of,  essen- 
tial, necessary,  and  eternal,  119 — necessity  for  a  personal  distinc- 
tion of,  120 — whyamvslery.  122— doctrine  of  the,  maintained  in 
the  Old  Testament,  126— Jews  held  the  doctrine  of  the,  134 — use 
of  the  doctrine  of  the,  155. 

Union,  the  Father  with  the  Son,  72. 

Unitarian,  societies,  constitution  of,  32 — disagreements  of,  33. 

Uaiiij,  divine,  59. 

Use  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  155. 

Volition  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  99.         . 

Wickedness^  df  mankind,  universal,  265 — oi  the  Jews,  2C6 — of  the 
Gentiles,  268 — how  accounted  for,  269— scriptural  method  of  ac- 
counting for  the,  272. 

Wisdom,  the  folly  of  human,  in  thingsdivine,  26. 

Word,  of  God,  w'orld  created  by,  66 — tlivinity  of  the,  76.  146 — how 
distinguished  from  the  Father,  116 — maniieslalionsof  the,  under 
the  Old  Testament,  127 — Jews  .held  the  doctrine  of  the,  135. 
See  Jesus  Christ. 

Worship,. Awinc,  paid  to  Jesus  Christ,  88,  140 — due  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  113. 


INDEX  TO  THE  TEXTS   OF  SCRIPTURE, 

MORE    OR   LESS   ILLUSTRATED. 


Gen.  i^  1, 

126, 

134 

Isaiah  vii,  14, 

311 

Matt,  xvii. 

5, 

121 

i,2, 

115 

133 

viii,  13,  14, 

92 

xix,  17, 

80 

26, 

126, 

296 

ix,  6, 

82 

XX.  23, 

76 

27, 

274 

xi,  1,  2,  10, 

131 

XXV,  41, 

54 

31, 

296 

xii,  2, 

131 

46, 

201 

iii,  6, 

285 

xxxiv,  16, 

134 

xxvi,  24, 

221 

14,  15, 

282 

xl,  3,  5,9, 11, 

132 

63-66, 

141 

17,  19, 

286 

13,  14, 

HI 

xxvii,  40, 

141 

22, 

126 

xhv,  24, 

112 

xxvili,  19 

61 

148 

23,  34, 

289 

xlv,18, 21-25 

92 

Mark  ii,  7, 

86 

V,  3, 

274 

xlviii,  12-16, 

133 

ix,  43,  44 

» 

219 

XV,  1,  2, 

127 

liv,  6, 

92 

x,15. 

294 

xviii,  17, 

127 

Jer.  i,  5, 

293 

Luke  i,  ii, 

308 

xxii,  1,  2 

12, 

xxiii,  5,6,    91 

132 

i,3. 

259 

15,18, 

127 

,128 

136 

15, 

293 

xxviii,  13 

20, 

xxxiii,  15, 16 

91 

35, 

112 

139 

22, 

128 

Ezek.  viii,  13, 

133 

ii,  1-5 

330 

xxxii,  24- 

-30, 

128 

Dan.  ix,  24, 

172 

41,42, 

332 

Exod.  iii, 

129 

Joel  ii,  28,  29, 

346 

iii,  1, 

336 

vii,  1, 

80 

Mic.  v,  2, 

119 

23, 

321 

,341 

xxiii,  21, 

129 

Zech.  xii,  1, 10, 

92 

iv,  41, 

141 

Lev.  i,  3, 

166 

xiii,7. 

132 

X,  17, 18, 

20, 

53 

iv,  13-21 

» 

163 

Mai.  iii,  4, 

91 

xvi,  24, 

226 

Num.  xix. 

I,  3, 

iv,  2, 

116 

John  i,  1, 

76 

117 

4,9, 

195 

Matt,  i,  ii. 

308 

i,  1,  2,  9, 

14, 

Josh.  V,  13, 

15, 

129 

i,  1-17, 19, 

321 

15,  30, 

65 

Judg.  vi,  12 

, 

129 

21-25, 

323 

3,  10,  14, 

66 

XV,  14, 

133 

23,             .76 

,312 

14, 

147 

Job  i. 

46 

ii. 

324 

16, 

72 

xi,  12, 

273 

iii,  12,       215 

219 

ii,  11, 

139 

xix,  26, 

130 

iv,  3, 

141 

iii,  3-6, 

372 

xlii,  1, 

177 

5-11,            42,49 

6, 

273 

Psalm  ii,  7, 

12, 

130 

v,  26, 

225 

13,31, 

62 

xxxvi,  9, 

117 

vi,  13, 

58 

16, 

120 

137 

xlv, 

130 

ix,  18, 

262 

35, 

121 

Ixxxii,  1, 

80 

xii,  26, 

42 

v,  17,  18, 

141 

xcvii,  7, 

80 

28, 

148 

18,19,31 

,33, 

Prov.«xx,  4, 

131 

xiii,  30, 

215 

36,  37, 

142 

Eccles.  vii 

29, 

296 

xiv,  32,  33, 

140 

23, 

89 

396 


INDEX    TO   THE   TEXT3    OF    SCRIPTURE. 


John  V,  39, 

25 

1  Cor.  yi,  3, 

54 

2  Tim.  iv,  1, 

140 

viii,  58, 

64 

1  Cor.  vi,  19, 

110 

Tit.  ii,  10, 

79 

ix,  38, 

140 

vii,  25-40, 

248 

13, 

81 

X,  30, 

72 

X,  14-16, 

25 

iii,  4,  6, 

79 

30-38, 

80 

xi,  3, 

72 

Hebrews  i,  2,  3, 

33-30, 

141 

11, 

112 

8-12, 

06 

36-38, 

142 

xii,  6-11, 

117 

3,      117 

121 

37,  38, 

74 

8-11, 

111 

ii,  17, 

172 

xi,  25,27, 

140 

11, 

101 

vi,  4-8, 

216 

xii,  41, 

87 

xiii,  12, 

114 

X,  5-7, 

63 

xiii,  3, 

62 

XV,  47, 

62 

10, 

64 

xiv,  5-10, 

73 

2  Cor.  i,  24, 

258 

13,  14, 

195 

XV,  13,14, 

243 

iii,  12,  13, 

36 

xiii,  11,  12, 

195 

xvi,  15, 

121 

17, 

355 

15, 

175 

28, 

62 

iv,  2-4 

36 

James  v,  4, 

87 

30-32, 

143 

6, 

145 

1  Pet.  i,  17-19, 

196 

xvii,  5, 

63 

v,21. 

170 

ii,  5, 

175 

XX,  28, 

77 

vii,  1, 

366 

2  Pet.  i,  1,  ■ 

79 

30,  31, 

140 

Eph.  i,  10, 

228 

4, 

72 

Acts  i,  2, 

117 

ii,3, 

282 

ii,  1, 

86 

ii,  38, 

185 

18-22, 

365 

4, 

39 

V,  3,  4, 

110 

iii,  9, 

229 

1  Johnii,  1, 

180 

31,      145 

300 

17-19, 

71 

2 

172 

x,22, 

89 

20, 

353 

18-22, 

147 

xi,  18, 

360 

iv,  7, 

72 

iv,  1,3, 

24 

XV,  28, 

99 

22-24, 

296 

3, 

147 

xix,  3, 

61 

24, 

145 

8, 

295 

Rom.  i,  19-23, 

22 

V,  5, 

79 

10, 

172 

iii,  19-31, 

194 

23, 

73 

V,  13, 

147 

23-26, 

196 

Phil,  ii,  6,   76 

115 

19, 

57 

25,     172, 

176 

iii,  21,   146 

230 

20,      81 

147 

V,  10, 

173 

Col.  i,  13-17, 

67 

Jude  4, 

85 

12-21,   227, 

283 

15, 

117 

6, 

38 

viii,  3, 

186 

16, 

37 

9, 

52 

12-23, 

227 

19,      71 

120 

24,25, 

81 

27, 

99 

20-23, 

229 

Rev.  i,  8, 

87 

32, 

138 

ii,  9,  10, 

296 

14, 

104 

ix,  5, 

84 

1  Thcss.  v,  19, 

349 

iv,  11, 

b7 

X,  13, 

145 

1  Tim.  ii,  4, 

229 

^  13, 

228 

xii,  I, 

175 

iii,  10, 

78 

xiv,  9-11, 

204 

xiv,  4-6, 

20 

vi,  15, 

86 

xix,  13, 

117 

iCor.  i,2, 

145 

2  Tim.  iii,  15, 

XX,  6-15, 

224 

ii,  9-11, 

OS 

10, 

251 

1    1012  01006  7082 


« 


